Below is the full text of
a debate on firearms and gun control that raged on the trauma-list
for 3 weeks in August 1999. All the messages are quoted verbatim
apart from a few spelling corrections. Some messages have been
concatenated and some message quoting added or removed to making
reading easier.

It's long,
but provides a unique insight into the gun control issue. After
the main debate, closing statements are presented
by the main protagonists.

References quoted in the text are
available in the firearms section
of our injury prevention pages.

From: John Holmes
Date: 04.08.99 05:40 GMT

((part response to another thread))
What has it come to that our colleagues in America reflexly
worry about being shot for doing their job?. Do you actually
have a society where friends and relatives will be carrying
handguns into your departments? Thank god I live in a society
which has at least a notionally rational approach to weapons
control. We still have shooting incidents in Australia but
it certainly hasn't got to the stage where we even think about
restricting people to the ED on the basis they might be armed
and shoot our staff. Do the medical and nursing professions
in the States actively lobby for gun control?

Some do and some do not, and surprisingly many actively
oppose more reasonable control of access to firearms by the
general public. as is true in your country and every single
other industrialized democracy in the world. The Eastern Association
for the /surgery of Trauma, the American Trauma Society and
the american Academy of Pediatrics are among the few major
American medical societies which have published strong and
heavily scientifically referenced stands against the current
paradoxical level of largely unrestricted access to those
firearms that most contribute to the horrendous mortality
of our population from firearms. The CDC's National Injury
Prevention and Control Center and the Institute of Medicine
have recently published major treatises on the need for more
rational control of firearm access.

Interestingly, such major organizations as the American
Medical Association, the American Association for the Surgery
of Trauma and even the American College of Surgeons have specifically
refused to take either any stance at all on this critical
issue (AAST, AMA) or such a watered down "stance" that it
accomplishes less than nothing (ACS) You explain it--I sure
can't

Eric Frykberg, MD
Jacksonville, Fl

From: John Holmes
Date: 05.08.99 01:35 GMT

Eric -

Thanks for the feedback. Over here we look at the American
experience with firearms with disbelief. Didn't someone once
say that society was doomed when good men do nothing? We have
lunatic right wing politicians advocating loosening of firearm
control in Australia and we have our militias and conspiracy
theorists advocating civilian armed resistance etc etc. On
the whole such people are ridiculed in the media and thankfully
our major medical organisations speak out strongly in favour
of gun control. Having said all that I lost a good friend
when a radiography (X-ray tech) student who had failed final
exams shot up the X-ray staff in a hospital I was working
in in Cairns North Queensland a few years ago. We always think
our deep north parallels your deep south in many respects.
At the end of the day, however, I guess we are fortunate in
that the so-called right to bear arms is not enshrined in
our constitution - though I suspect the original intent of
your founding fathers has long since been distorted and manipulated
by self interest groups.

Cheers,
John

From: Jim Cowan
Date: 05.08.99 03:10 GMT

This is an example of what happens when you run a country
via the "media".

Remember, it was the "media" who started the Spanish-American
war. A few facts that the hand wringing gun control nuts find
uncomfortable;

1. Violent crime. The largest mass murder in US history
was committed with a bucks worth of unleaded.

2. Safety. The most dangerous item you can own in a home
is a ladder. (guns aren't even in the top 5)

3. Cause? Turning the loonies loose on the streets doesn't
equal safety for the populace when your only solution is to
"hide all the sharp instruments" from them.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: John Holmes
Date: 05.08.99 05:14 GMT

Oh dear. Well as a "hand wringing gun control nut" here's
a few thoughts :

1. People with guns kill at a distance - depersonalisation
makes it easier to kill
2. Guns make heroes out of cowards
3. People with guns can kill indiscriminately

How tiresome it is to hear the sort of argument routinely
trotted out by apologists for firearms - that guns don't kill,
people do. How many cases of mass slaughter do we have to
put up with before the Dr/Mr Cowans of this world will finally
accept that guns make it a hell of lot easier to kill a hell
of a lot more people. In Australia's tragedy at Port Arthur
2 years ago a lunatic armed with automatic rifles systematically
murdered > 30 people. How many people would he have killed
if he had only been armed with a knife? How brave would school
student killers be without their guns?

Yes Mr Cowan I'm a gun control advocate. And not just because
I lost a close friend shot through the head - and there's
no doubt her killer couldn't have done what he did without
a firearm. I'm a gun control advocate because I value living
in a society largely free from fear and where I can walk the
inner city streets at night. Thank god we haven't yet in Australia
developed the sort of siege mentality which seems to have
Americans obsessed with fear of violence and the need for
security - as witnessed by recent posts on the Open Door issue.

<< 1. Violent crime. The largest mass murder
in US history was committed with a bucks worth of unleaded.
>>

So? every year more than 35,000 are killed on our streets
and in our homes by firearms--and more than 98% of these are
innocent citizens not doing anything wrong (FBI Uniform Crime
Reports, National Center for Health Statistics)

No, guns are not the only cause of death from injury in our
country--just the second most common

<< 2. Safety. The most dangerous item you
can own in a home is a ladder. (guns aren't even in the top
5) >>

Purely and simply mortality is higher with a gun in the home
than in a home without a gun----and those killed are 43 times
more likely to be household members than intruders. See Kellerman
et al NEJM 1986, 1993, 1994

Oh and by the way, your reference for the above so interesting
factoid?

<< 3. Cause? Turning the loonies loose on
the streets doesn't equal safety for the populace when your
only solution is to "hide all the sharp instruments" from
them. >>

I agree with this. Interesting how the crazy idea that 35,000
deaths each year must just be swallowed as the price of freedom--and
the victims get blamed for being in the way

From: Jeff B
Date: 05.08.99 14:31 GMT

<< 2. Safety. The most dangerous item you
can own in a home is a ladder. (guns aren't even in the top
5) >>

I will assume this statement is made because there are more
injuries from falling off ladders than from handguns (annually).
Probably true, and I won't bother to refute that.

Of course, more homes have ladders in them, and ladders are
used more often than guns, and a minor slip from a ladder
may result in a broken leg or sprained ankle, and let's not
forget that ladders are not often kept locked up with the
rungs locked in a seperate cabinet (like they should be, as
most ladder rights activists proclaim. "I'm the National Ladder
Association and I vote!")

Churchill once said "There are three types of lies. Lies,
Damn Lies, and Statistics." Maybe I haven't been in this field
long enough, but I've never called for a trauma team activate
for a ladder injury.

Apologies for the sarcasm....well, not really.

Jeff B.,
NREMTP
Atlanta, GA

From: Amy Kenna
Date: 05.08.99 19:33 GMT

If anyone has taken the hunter safety course, you are taught
many many many ways to properly handle guns, and always being
sure if your target and beyond is stressed as well as being
in control of your muzzle or barrel of a gun at all times
and safe storage and ethical use if the guns. Which in the
courses case is hunting. In my home we have 5 high powered
rifels with scopes, 4 shotguns, and two handguns. the ammunition
to these guns is stored underneath the compartment where the
guns are stored. Both compartments require a key to unlock.
And we are talking a real lock, not a lock that can be picked
with a paperclip or other such things. This is how I was raised,
along with unloading a gun befoe getting into a vehicle and
unloading the clip also before going into a house. If we are
hunting our gun cases have locks on them along with 4 hinges
that have to also be opened. we do not have a gun in the bedroom
dresser drawer either. We certainly have the option but we
have always chose not to do this. This is responsible gun
handling and storage. I also believe that if a criminal is
going to use a gun in commiting a crime they will find one.
whether stealing from a friend or a parent that has one in
the bedroom.

Amy J. Kenna,
NREMT-P

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 06.08.99 02:43 GMT

Amy-- This is often a line of reasoning one hears in the
firearm debate, and it has definite merit--the guns you are
talking about are not at all the ones targeted by the bulk
of gun control measures being advocated or legislated, because
they are not the ones that have anywhere near the contribution
to violent death and injury in this country, mainly becuase
the owners of these weapons are largely hunters and sportsmen
who have learned like you responsible handling and storage
and safe use. Learning the safe use of firearms is the most
important way to cut down on injury and death from these weapons,
and this is the basic premise of even the NRA's excellent
safety programs.

So--an obvious corollary of logic--why should ANY group then
not agree that a condition of gun ownership must be a required
demonstration, by written and practical testing, of their
safe use, otherwise no go? And--any reckless or violent use
of these weapons automatically should mean having the use
of the weapon taken away. Firearms are the second most dangerous
product on the Americna marketplace (after motor vehicles
in terms of total deaths) but the least regulated, and the
only product that is meant to kill--and for handguns, face
it--the only product meant to kill other human beings when
used as directed, having no other use!

Therefore, why should we not at least have the same level
of control of its harmful effects as motor vehicles, with
mandatory licensing and registration and required demonstration
of safe use? The logic here is unassailable, but always gets
anwered by changing the subject to God-given rights, etc,
as if that excuses the 35,000+ deaths each year. And the opposition
to this rational approach is a glaring inconsistency in the
logic of the stance taken by those against resonable control
of firearm access to the public. You cannot on the one hand
advocate increasing law and order, and gun safety learning,
and then on the other hand oppose any measures that prevent
both! Look at the phenomenal decrease in motor vehicle deaths
over the past 30 years by implementing measures to restrict
and control their use, and the phenomenal increase in firearm
deaths over this same period during which no concerted effort
has been made to reduce deaths--and those tried are actively
opposed! The facts are unassailable--

ERF

From: Charles Krin
Date: 06.08.99 11:15 GMT

<<Maybe I haven't been in this field
long enough, but I've never alled for a trauma team activate
for a ladder injury. >>

I have...50 something black male helping paint a house- fell
about 5 foot off of a scaffold, fractured femur first identified
by the paramedics. By the time the intern (me) was allowed
to start on the H&P, bilateral "rice crispies" were found
under the skin...and there were a couple of embarrassed upper
level residents. Got to put in my first chest tube on that
patient as a reward for identifying the impending tension
pneumothoracies...

<< How many people would he have killed
if he had only been armed with a knife? How brave would school
student killers be without their guns?
- So true!
- Ever hear of a drive-by knifing, or a schoolyard knifing
massacre?
ERF >>

No, but there have been a number of "drive over" attempted
school yard massacres...does this mean that all of us need
to give up our cars? And aren't cars (in particular drunk/impaired
drivers) one of the sources for high mortality among the truly
innocent? This is even more reason for us to turn all of our
deadly vehicles in. What, you say that the cars are not at
fault? Well, in drug deals, the vehicles are held to be civilly
liable and can be impounded, along with any cash and goods
inside them...(abet on shaky 4th Amendment grounds)...so why
not do the same with an impaired driver...or for that matter,
all drivers. After all, almost everyone drives impaired at
some point in time...from medications, alcohol, lack of sleep,
whatever...Take the cars away now, before they hurt someone.

(Yes, I realize that I am arguing from a standpoint of "reductio
ad absurdum..." but that's what some of you folks are doing
about guns...)

Hey, let's take some personal responsibility for our own
actions, and insist that the law makers and law keepers enforce
responsibility on those who would break the law.

I'm working on a longer piece, but have to dig some of the
more interesting references out...like the article from one
of the trauma journals that purported to reference an incident
in Southern California where a drive by shootist made three
successive head shots with a .357 Magnum revolver...

Charles S. Krin,
DO FAAFP
Member, PGBFH

From: Thomas Horan
Date: 06.08.99 13:21 GMT

no doubt about it guns are safe and scaffolds
dangerous

<<so why not do the same with an impaired
driver >>

At first I thought you were joking but now that I realize
you were being sarcastic - I would just feel sorry for you
were it not for the seriousness of your error in reason and
humanity.

Tom Horan

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 06.08.99 18:43 GMT

<< ? This is even more reason for us to turn
all of our deadly vehicles in. What, you say that the cars
are not at fault? Well, in drug deals, the vehicles are held
to be civilly liable and >>

Charles--

You make a perfect point--autos are very dangerous--and thus
we require written and practical evidence of our knowledge
of their safe use, and licensure and registration, before
being allowed to use them. If we are reckless or negligent
in their use (i.e. vehicular homicide) then, precisely, the
car is taken away from us. So, I agree with your obvious point
that we should at least bring firearms, the second most deadly
product on the American market, to the level of control of
motor vehicles--and also recognizing that the purpose of a
gun, unlike a car, is nothing other than to kill. Something
so potentially dangerous must require licensure and registration
after proving the owner's knowledge of safe use.

But something tells me, Charles, that despite the inconsistency
with your own logic above, you oppose these measures? Safe
use, I assume, is nothing more than rhetoric to you?

Proper enforcement of the law, especially against those criminals
who would improperly use guns, is certainly also necessary--but
of course we must realize that that by itself will not make
much of a dent in the horrendous numbers of firearm deaths
in this country, since 80% + have nothing to do with criminal
activity (FBI Uniform Crime Reports--every year since 1983)

ERF

From: Charles Krin
Date: 07.08.99 04:00 GMT

<< At first I thought you were joking
but now that I realize you were being sarcastic - I would
just feel sorry for you were it not for the seriousness of
your error in reason and humanity. >>

Tom, I've already replied to Eric on some of the other stuff.
The point I was trying to make is that objects in and of themselves
cannot by definition be "evil." Even a Swastika, the symbol,
almost an embodiment, of one of the worst times of evil to
befall the civilized world in this or any other century is
not evil...just look at various Chinese and American Indian
uses of the swastika that far predate the adoption by the
Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany of the "crooked cross."

My point remains that there is much that can be done under
our current laws to curb both the misuse of firearms and motor
vehicles without further tinkering with our society.

This will remain true no matter what your opinion about my
mores and morals.

<< Proper enforcement of the law, especially
against those criminals who would improperly use guns, is
certainly also necessary--but of course we must ealize that
that by itself will not make much of a dent in the horrendous
umbers of firearm deaths in this country, since 80% + have
nothing to do with criminal activity (FBI Uniform Crime Reports--every
year since 1983)
ERF >>

Eric, in the wee small hours of this morning, I re read one
of your posts: you are arguing from a point that fire arms
in general and hand guns in particular are "malum in se" (evil
in and of themselves). I won't argue with you or even try
to convince you otherwise...your stint in the Navy should
have showed you the difference. We have previously compared
notes on military service, so your attempted ad hominem falls
flat- I have said or implied nothing endorsing the unsafe
use of either motor vehicles or firearms. Someone else indicated
that they felt that guns were evil in and of themselves because
of a death in the family due to a gun...To you I give my most
sincere condolences, just as I gave them to the families of
two other patients today who were/did die. It's always tough
for any of one who survives to understand why someone close
to them died, no matter what the cause.

For any one who is interested:

We already have laws and taxes in place that regulate the
firearms industry and shooting sports much heavier than the
automobile industry...and the majority of those taxes go towards
making the remains of the great outdoors available to everybody.
To purchase any firearm these days, a person must submit to
the equivalent of a National Agency Check for a Secret Clearance...and
basically prove that they are innocent. The President recently
trumpeted that "400,000 gun sales" had been denied, not mentioning
that less than 24 dozen convictions have resulted from these
incidents. Despite this dismal record of mis feasance, mal
feasance and non feasance in office ranging from the President
to the individual US Attorneys, the FBI and the ATF, it remains
a Federal Felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison for
each offense, for a restricted person (including not only
felons whose civil rights have not been restored but also
persons convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses) to do things
such as simply handling a firearm, attempting to purchase
a firearm, or attempting to purchase firearm ammunition. Slam
dunk convictions, you'd think, as "the thing speaks for itself"
if the case gets any where near a court. I say again: these
laws currently in place are NOT being enforced! In those areas
(think of Boston, and Kansas City) where local agencies have
obtained the cooperation of the Federal Attorneys, and have
made sure that repeat felons get the Federal raps they deserve,
violence of all sorts has gone down markedly. I've not seen
anything like that cooperation here in Louisiana.

My driver's license is recognized in every state and territory
in the Union, all of the Canadian Provinces, and all of the
states of Mexico. My permit to carry is not, even though I
have completed the Peace Officers Standards and Training Council's
prescribed course, and am a sworn deputy sheriff with full
powers of arrest. Like you, I've also received a fair amount
of firearms training in the military-what more do I have to
do to prove that I can handle firearms safely? I have no problem
with establishing a certain standard of training, outside
of the interesting idea that if records are kept of who has
training, then someone has a list of folks to visit...in the
middle of the night...when no one else is looking. Pardon
my near paranoia, but the Feds DO NOT have a good track record
of keeping their word...just look at most of the American
Indian reservations in the country....

The number of firearms deaths has dropped (reference your
figures above- I'll have to check, but if 80% are not criminally
related, I'll be surprised. Here in Northeast Louisiana, deliberate
use of firearms by felons out weigh "accidental" injuries
and deaths by a fairly large factor) despite the increase
in the number of weapons and the increase in population with
firearms available to them. In particular, both deliberate
and "accidental" deaths and injuries have decreased somewhat
in states with "Shall Issue" Concealed carry laws...and the
folks at Handguns International hate that...which is why the
national headlines don't trumpet the deaths anymore. For example:
Nationwide, there has been *ONE* publicized case of a person
with a permit to carry (in Texas) who has been involved in
a "road rage" incident. Since the passage of the "shoot the
carjacker" law here in Louisiana, there has been *ONE* incident
where it was invoked...and prior to the passage, there was
at least one publicized case of carjacking a month...and none
since then. Eric, what about your own state of Florida? Last
I looked, crimes against persons had dropped every year since
the passage of the Shall Issue laws, except for one little
blip involving out of town tourists in the first year or so
after passage-this blip resulted in many Florida rental car
companies changing the way that they identified cars...and
in Florida being the first state to become a "shall issue"
state for folks coming in for vacation as well. What happened
to the predictions of massive problems with "gun toting grandmas?"

"Shall Issue" states generally require at least some form
of "Shooter's Education" prior to allowing the folks to carry,
and many of those courses (curtesy of the National Rifle Association's
Instructors Programs) involve substantially more than the
minimum required by the jurisdictions. Here in Louisiana,
for folks born after 1 November 1969, successful completion
of a Hunter's Safety Course is needed prior to obtaining a
hunting license as well (I've taken and helped teach the course-it's
not as easy as you might think....) A driver's license? A
ten question multiple choice test that my 8 year old should
be able to pass...and some form of other identification saying
you are you ... maybe a road test, maybe not...Now go back
to compare renting a car (where all I need is a "valid" driver's
license and a matching credit card with a couple of hundred
dollars available credit)....and no background check...to
purchasing a firearm. (Also remember that the folks who bombed
the World Trade Center several years ago would have been a
whole lot harder to catch if one of them had not gone back
to get his deposit from the rental truck back, claiming that
the truck had been stolen.)

Recent JAMA articles indicate that a third fewer kids are
involved in violence in schools, and a third fewer are carrying
weapons to school compared to just 5 years ago...and also
point out that it costs some US$ 17,000 to treat each gunshot
wound. Last I looked, a large percentage of the victims were
NOT innocent bystanders (if they are, why are you guys so
worried about their assailants coming into your ED's trying
to finish the job?). IIRC, from the Academy a number of years
ago, a violent felon will commit between 3 and 5 violent crimes
against persons and up to a dozen other crimes in a year.
It only takes about US$ 40,000 to incarcerate one of these
guys for a year, for a net savings of $30,000 to $50,000 per
year.

Reference your "schoolyard knifings," those suicidal weirdoes
in Littleton committed at least 5 and possible as many as
40 different state and federal felonies based on current laws...including
some that would be impossible to prevent even with the most
draconian solutions proposed WITHOUT parental involvement...and
anything more than cursory parental involvement should have
alleviated the problem in the first place. The chap in Atlanta?
What was that about his late wife and mother in law? Bludgeoned
to death, like his last wife and children...

Finally, three points: First, there are more things that
you can do with a motor vehicle than with a firearm. However,
some of the things that firearms do well (like hunting) are
now needed because Mankind has managed to replace all of the
other predators at the top of the food chain. Without the
pressure of hunting here in the Central South, it's estimated
that it would take less than three years for the dear population
to boom and then crash from starvation, being hit. Without
the taxes paid by hunters and hobby shooters, two-thirds of
the tax support for wildlife resources would be lost. At what
point do you have the right to insist that I give up a hobby
that brings me pleasure and has, in 20 years so far, harmed
no human (unlike at least one of our respected Solons with
his car in roughly the same time period...).

Second, under the heading of the "most good for the most
people," the government has no obligation to protect an individual
facing harm, but the right to self defense has been enshrined
in Common Law at least since the Magna Carta. How do you propose
the 90 year old widow secure her safety from the two legged
predators in her neighborhood? How do you propose the 25 year
old woman with two little children and an abusive spouse handle
him as he takes an ax to the door...despite a judicial restraining
order...and when the police are 10 minutes away? At what point
do we accept that we as individuals might become fodder in
the mill of society because we have given up our individual
rights to self defense and self determination? You choose
as you may, As for me and mine....

Third, at what point do you expect me to believe that the
current crop of law enforcers would be allowed to be any better
at preventing the bad guys from obtaining real machine guns
and assault rifles as easy as they get drugs now, instead
of some of the crap they have now? I expect that as the demand
for illicit weapons grows, like the drug trade, those folks
willing to break the law will continue to be better armed
than the police. Individually, the LEO's are decent people....and
most of the ones that I know are at least as dedicated to
their jobs as you and I are to ours. On a larger scale, we
cannot afford the kind of restrictions on our society that
it would take to do the job you seem to be wanting done. I'll
borrow Niven's Fourth Law again: "Freedom times Security equals
some constant. The more Security you want, the less freedom
you get."

You want to push to decriminalize petty drug usage to free
up places in jail to put some more of these guys that really
are a menace to society, you will get my full support- put
the small time users and user pushers into therapy and community
service where they belong, reduce the profits from drugs by
providing certified and taxed supplies to consenting adults
(and requiring a bond for users to show that they can afford
to take care of their own medical bills...), and then hit
the folks hard who show that they do not want to be part of
society. Do that for a year in a large segment of the nation,
and show where there was no significant decrease in the number
of firearms related injuries and deaths, and then come back
and you'll get some more support from several of the diverse
groups out there.

ck

From: Robert F. Smith
Date: 07.08.99 06:19 GMT

Amy,
I echo Rick's statements re: the guns. Those of us who deal
with the effects of pervasive firearm violence are not being
burdened by the actions of well trained hunters. The bane
of our live and those of our patients is the proliferation
of cheap and deadly handguns or other weapons designed solely
to kill other humans.

Krin,
If firearms were subjected to the same scrutiny and regulation
as motor vehicles I think many of us who are concerned with
the public health burden of firearms would be thrilled. Perhaps
you would be willing to become an advocate for such a responsible
change in policy.

Robert F. Smith, M.D.,MPH
Department of Trauma
Cook County Hospital

From: Jeff B
Date: 07.08.99 06:33 GMT

I agree whole-heartedly. In my brief five years in emergency
medicine (mostly in EMS, though one was as a tech in Level
II), I have seen ONE GSW from a weapon designed for hunting.
ONE. And that was minor, comparatively (as though any GSW
can be minor) with mostly muscle damage to the leg...# 7 shotgun
shell....seems the patient was mistaken for a pheasant. OTOH,
have seen many life ending injuries from 9mm, .38 cal, etc.,
because these weapons are used for one purpose. For those
who disagree, why is it that gang members/psychopathic killers/etc.
do not carry .22 single shot rifles?

Answer? It works well for a squirrel, but not for humans.
Cordially,

Jeff B.
Paramedic

From: Charles Krin
Date: 07.08.99 12:06 GMT

<< If firearms were subjected to the
same scrutiny and regulation as motor vehicles I think many
of us who are concerned with the public health burden of firearms
would be thrilled. Perhaps you would be willing to become
an advocate for such a responsible change in policy. Robert
F. Smith, M.D.,MPH >>

They are...look at what someone in your own state and city
has to do to own one. Legally-Illinois in general, and Chicago
in particular have some of the toughest laws in the country
(after only Washington, DC, and New York).

People who are inclined to disobey the current laws are
NOT going to change under any of the proposed draconian solutions.
Laws that would allow the police the liberty to apply those
draconian solutions effectively enough to change those folks
(short of them being arrested after an incident) would violate
at least the Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (you'd practically
have to put an armed trooper into each household). Interestingly
enough, this would also provide the kind of security needed
to answer my questions about what to do about those folks
who need to defend themselves from two legged predators, but
at what cost, both to society and to freedom?

ck

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 07.08.99 14:26 GMT

<< The number of firearms deaths has dropped
(reference your figures above- I'll have to check, but if
80% are not criminally related, I >>

Once again, Charles--FBI Uniform Crime Reports--comes out
once each year, as well as the Vital Statistics Report of
the NCHS of the CDC about 50% of all firearm deaths are suicides,(right
there the biggest chunk--of course no crime at all) 44% homicides
(over 70% involving people who know each other--domestic disputes,
love triangles, etc) and 4%-5% unintentional

Yes the number of firearm deaths has dropped from its high
in 1993 of over 39,000 to now something over 35,000 (beginning
right after the Brady Bill went into effect, interestingly)--but
we are still 10% higher than in 1985 and the curve since 1960
is still climbing cinsistently higher--by definition an epidemic.
That curve is marked by a number of sawtooths, ups and downs,
so beware of assuming a trend--altho ket's hope the downswing
continues

<< Tom, I've already replied to Eric on some
of the other stuff. The point I was trying to make is that
objects in and of themselves cannot by definition be "evil."
>>

Oh, really??? Then, Charles, why would you support, as your
last post makes clear, outlawing drugs? A bag of cocaine is
of no harm to anyone--it takes a person using it to cause
harm--right? Drugs, don't kill people, people kill people!
Don't outlaw that inanimate substance --punish the person
who does the injecting! Please reconcile this for us?

A three year old is lighting matches--what do you do? Punish
the 3 year old? Begin an education process to teach him not
to do that--reasonable, but of course that takes time to take
effect--what do you do in the meantime to prevent the house
from being burned down? You take away the matches! Now, matches
are inanimate--they can by themselves cause no harm! Matches
don't burn houses down, people do! It takes a person to light
one, right? But Charles--you know that you will take away
the matches--because without them, lives will not be lost
nearly as surely as if that person had matches.

In fact, the national statistics make clear, as do several
studies (try Tale of Two Cities, NEJM 1988 out of Univ Washington),
that equivalent populations without guns do not have a fraction
of the homicide or suicide rate as do populations with guns--so
your argument above is false--the gun itself is a clear vector
of the disease--not the only one, to be sure, but clearly
a contributor in and of itself, that must be restricted for
the safety of society just like cocaine and matches are by
folks like you ---again, another example of quite inconsistent
thinking and flawed reasoning.

<< People who are inclined to disobey the
current laws are NOT going to change under any of the proposed
draconian solutions. Laws that would allow the police the
liberty to apply those draconian solutions effectively enough
to change those folks (short of them being arrested after
an incident) would violate at least the Third, Fourth and
Fifth Amendments (you'd practically have to put an armed trooper
into each household). Interestingly enough, this would also
provide the kind of security needed to answer my questions
about what to do about those folks who need to defend themselves
from two legged predators, but at what cost, both to society
and to freedom? >>

Charles-- Wrong! In 1994 a new measure was instituted in
Indianapolis--using the very approach you advocate--in which
the police began a campaign of using existing laws on the
books to stop vehicles in high crime neighborhoods(by strictly
enforcing laws involving broken taillights, failing to yield
right of way or using turn signals, etc) and using that stop
to legally search for weapons in plain sight. It was phenomenally
successful, leading to a 50% reduction in homicides in that
city just within 6 months--by doing nothing other, Charles,
than taking away the guns! Of course you must advocate this,
it is just what you advocate--reducing crime by going after
the potential criminals! And guess what--the foundation of
democracy has not crumbled in Indianapolis--there has been
no loss of freedom or safety for the general population! How
do you explain that?

The success of that program led to it being adopted over
the next 2 years in Baltimore, Kansas City, and New York,
among others--and in every case, a significant and rapid decline
in homicides in every city--and what a coincidence--right
after this program went into effect (and the Brady Bill happened
at the same time) across the country's major cities, violent
crime figures acrooss the country dropped--as you pointed
out--by taking away the guns from those who should not have
them! The law worked! It has not "punished" the poor innocent
citizenry by leaving them open to these wanton criminals--the
overall homicide rate went down! In other words, without the
gun, these criminals did not find other ways to kill--without
the gun, the killing did not happen at all! (This last is
nothing new--it is well known from several studies that this
is the case)

This is a real life refutation of your oh so high sounding
conjectures above--please explain these facts to us?

ERF

From: Charles Krin
Date: 07.08.99 17:17

<< about 50% of all firearm deaths are suicides,(right
there the biggest chunk--of course no crime at all)>>

And if someone is committed to suicide? Will eliminating
all firearms eliminate this form of death? How many "one vehicle
accidents" occuring late at night should also be in this category?

ck

From: Robert F. Smith
Date: 07.08.99 17:59 GMT

Charles,

Firearms are specifically except from regulation by Federal
Consumer Safety agencies. The clothes your kids are wearing
are not exempt from regulation because it is felt to be important
that they not accidentally catch fire and burn to a crisp
in 2 seconds. Your toaster is not exempt so you don't buy
one that electrocutes you.

I think guns are more dangerous than toasters and clothes.
Do you?

Individuals are not required to report sales of firearms
to other individuals. Thus it is impossible to track a particular
weapon used in a crime to a particular owner. Cars sales are
required to be reported.

The CDC is now forbidden to participate or fund health research
involving firearms. On pain of death.

I think over 35,000 Americans dying each year and representing
one of the leading causes of lost years of future life in
our country is a legitimate public health emergency. Do you?

R. Smith, M.D.

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 07.08.99 18:59

<< And if someone is committed to suicide?
Will eliminating all firearms eliminate this form of death?
How many "one vehicle accidents" occuring late at night should
also be in this category? >>

The answer to this question is well established--yes! The
rate of suicide in populations without guns is far lower than
in very similar populations with guns--i.e. without the gun,
other forms of suicide are not used and the suicide largely
does not happen--again see the Univ Washington study entitled
A Tale of Two Cities, comparing two very similar cities, Seattle
and Vancouver, in which the only difference lies in the virtual
inability of those in Vancouver to own or use handgun Suicide
in 12-24 year olds in Vancouver are 10-fold lower than in
Seattle--this is only one of many studies documenting this
point Charles, you really should become acquainted with the
facts before spouting off your media-fed sound bites that
are so easily refutable And use facts, rather than conjectures
to support your points, which you have yet to do even once

For the 2nd part of your question--62% of all suicides in
the U.S. are from firearms--I quoted you that about 49%-50%
of all firearm deaths are suicides--so of course the one-car
MVC would NOT fall into this category!

ERF

From: Charles Krin
Date: 07.08.99 20:45

<<A bag of cocaine is of no harm to
anyone--it takes a person using it to cause harm--right? Drugs,
don't kill people, people kill people! Don't outlaw that inanimate
substance --punish the person who does the injecting! Please
reconcile this for us?>>

Rick, that kilogram of cocaine, a few milligrams at a time,
will go a long way to alleviating suffering while a surgeon
is repairing faces and mucus membranes by providing an anesthetic
and nearly bloodless field. Converted to "crack" and passed
out a few milligrams at a time to kids, it's a tragedy. Beyond
the conversion to cocaine base, is there any difference in
the material itself, or just in the use?

<< A three year old is lighting matches--what
do you do? Punish the 3 year old? Begin an education process
to teach him not to do that--reasonable, but of course that
takes time to take effect--what do you do in the meantime
to prevent the house from being burned down? You take away
the matches! Now, matches are inanimate--they can by themselves
cause no harm! Matches don't burn houses down, people do!
It takes a person to light one, right? But Charles--you know
that you will take away the matches--because without them,
lives will not be lost nearly as surely as if that person
had matches>>

And how did we go from the rights and responsibilities of
presumably reasonable adults with no legal disabilities to
the care and feeding of a three year old? I've already agreed
that folks with legal disabilities should not be allowed weapons-
they've proved that they cannot fit into the requirements
of society....that they are not responsible adults.

<<try Tale of Two Cities, NEJM 1988
out of Univ Washington>>

Rick, I'm in the process of digging that one out again.
IIRC, there have been some methodological arguments on the
population breakdowns, and once you correct for the numbers
of crime related actions in the inner city portion, much of
the difference drops out.

<<For the 2nd part of your question--62%
of all suicides in the U.S. are from firearms--I quoted you
that about 49%-50% of all firearm deaths are suicides--so
of course the one-car MVC would NOT fall into this category!
- ERF >>

Rick, There have been a few instances that I've been involved
in (at least peripherally) where it turned out that the deceased
was under significant stress...enough to raise the question
of just exactly why "he fell asleep at the wheel." In general,
Medical Examiners, Coroners and Police Investigators hesitate
to call a suicide in this kind of circumstance if there is
no note...and it gets written up in the statistics as an "accident."

<<Firearms are specifically except
from regulation by Federal Consumer Safety agencies. The clothes
your kids are wearing are not exempt from regulation because
it is felt to be important that they not accidentally catch
fire and burn to a crisp in 2 seconds. Your toaster is not
exempt so you don't buy one that electrocutes you. I think
guns are more dangerous than toasters and clothes. Do you?>>

Robert, I've never questioned that guns are more dangerous
than toasters or clothes, at least in careless or malign hands.
Then again, despite the use of Ground Fault Interrupters and
other safety factors promoted by the CPSC, we still occasionally
see someone trying to fish a piece of toast out with a metal
fork...or a kid will back up to an open gas heater in a worn
out flannel gown...

<< Individuals are not required to
report sales of firearms to other individuals. Thus it is
impossible to track a particular weapon used in a crime to
a particular owner. Cars sales are required to be reported.>>

Cars are required to be reported so that taxes can be levied
on the sale, (that's actually what the license tag is legally
an indication that you've paid your taxes.) It is possible
for serial numbers to be traced on a fair number of transactions
that occur legally-the ATF requires all registered dealers
to prove who they've sold to, and what the serial numbers
were-most legal weapons have started with a registered gun
dealer. Private transactions, including passing on heirloom
weapons and exchanges between individuals, do not require
more than good faith on the part of the seller at this time,
and if it were as easy to register the transfer of a firearm
as it is to register the transfer of a motor vehicle, you
might find more private sellers willing to put up with the
paper work. Unlawful transactions of either firearms or motor
vehicles remain unregistered in any case.

<<The CDC is now forbidden to participate
or fund health research involving firearms. On pain of death.>>

On the pain of death or the pain of loss of financing?

<< I think over 35,000 Americans dying
each year and representing one of the leading causes of lost
years of future life in our country is a legitimate public
health emergency. Do you? >>

Agreed. Now we just need to discuss what changes you are
willing to accept in your lifestyle and what changes you are
desirous of shoving down someone else's throat.

Ladies and Gentlemen, while we all perform triage at some
times of our professional lives, the last time I looked, "the
good of the many outweighing the good of the one" was not
a part of our civil code...but, in some ways, the antithesis
of it. Do we not have room left in our society to allow for
acceptance of personal risk and responsibility?

Do you really think that it will be possible to take all
of the risk out of life...to allow everybody to die in bed
at home of old age?

Are you willing to take the responsibility of living someone
else's life? This is basically what you are asking to do.
Think about it from that point of view for a while.

ck

From: Jim Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 02:52 GMT

<<Wrong! In 1994 a new measure was
instituted in Indianapolis--using the very approach you advocate--in
which the police began a campaign of using existing laws on
the books to stop vehicles in high crime neighborhoods(by
strictly enforcing laws involving broken taillights, failing
to yield right of way or using turn signals, etc) and using
that stop to legally search for weapons in plain sight. It
was phenomenally successful, leading to a 50% reduction in
homicides in that city just within 6 months--by doing nothing
other, Charles, than taking away the guns!>>

Interesting how you jump to these assumptions. I would look
to the same situation and say it succeeded because the police
enforced existing laws. This is all the NRA or any of us have
ever asked for

<<The rate of suicide in populations
without guns is far lower than in very similar populations
with guns--i.e. without the gun, other forms of suicide are
not used and the suicide largely does not happen>>

This is absolutely amazing...you are now claiming banning
guns will stop suicides? Is there no end to the depths you
handwringing gun control nuts will sink?

You appear to have an irrational fear of guns that is so
pervasive you are incapable of rationale dialog on the subject.

<<The CDC is now forbidden to participate
or fund health research involving firearms. On pain of death.>>

Thats because the handwringers on their staff produced a
study that was shown to be "questionable"...they then refused
to release the data used for the study and the people who
pay the bills at the CDC took exception to that.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 08.08.99 03:44 GMT

<< This is absolutely amazing...you are now
claiming banning guns will stop suicides? Is there no end
to the depths you handwringing gun control nuts will sink?
>>

Jim-- You need to read the posts more clearly--I claimed
NO SUCH THING! First. I never advocated in any way "banning
guns"! Doesn't it tell you something when you have to misquote
in order to advance your stance? I said--and check it if you
like--that populations without guns have a hugely lower suicide
(and, in fact, homicide and overall death) rate than populations
with access to guns, all else being equal, or similar.

This is not me saying this--as was also clear in my post,
I was relating the results of a number of population-based
studies which show this--and not a single one has ever yet
shown this NOT to be true--the Tale of Two Cities study in
the NEJM in 1988 is one particularly high-powered study I
cited which shows this.

So Jim--don't argue with me--argue with the science--interestingly,
this is something you too don't seem able to do--not yet a
single reference to support any of your conjectures and media-based
sound bites, nor to refute the studies I have cited--does
not that also tell us all something? You obviously don't agree
with this--fine--then show us your data that supports you,
rather than castigating the messenger, which is a pretty desperate
ploy indicating you have nothing else.

<< Interesting how you jump to these assumptions.
I would look to the same situation and say it succeeded because
the police enforced existing laws. This is all the NRA or
any of us have ever asked for. >>

Jim-- I agree with this--but how do you relate merely stopping
the car by itself for a broken taillight would drop the homicide
rate? Obviously, the guns that were found and confiscated
had to play a role, given that in these cities guns accounted
for over 70% of all homicides--the guns get taken away, and
voila! The homicides go away! This is a great example of how
better law enforcement works--but it works by removing guns
that should not be there! (The people stopped largely did
not get arrested--guns were only confiscated) Thus showing
the gun itself does make a difference over and above the person
who pulls the trigger.

<< Thats because the handwringers on their staff produced
a study that was shown to be "questionable"...they then refused
to release the data used for the study and the people w >>

Jim-- It is particularly galling and inconsistent of you
to in one breath ask for a "rational dialog" on this subject,
then in the next start name calling(which not one of your
posts has been free of)--it amazes me that a grown adult should
use such adolescent tactics--what are you so insecure about?
Could it be you can not live up to a real debate? You certainly
haven't up till now--again, not a single reference to support
anything--just a lot of negative bashing of everything said
without logic or reason. Let's start out with a simple question
to you--and let's all see if you ever answer it--Exactly what
study from the CDC was found to be "questionable"? and in
a free society, since when does some "question" about the
merits of a study EVER then mean that that author can never
again research a topic? Does that sound like scientific freedom
of inquiry or free speech?

Please name one scientific journal that would demand that
an author of a study with questionable conclusions, which
is good enough to be published after peer review,,must never
again be allowed to research? This clearly smacks of people
who are very afraid--irrationally so--of even seeing --oh
my God!--data--when that data does not conform to their preconceived
view of the world. If the data is wrong--or the results "questionable"--then
just ignore it--discount it! As we do every day with innumerable
studies in the literature. Why do you favor censoring the
mere attempt to gather data? And finally--name us all one
study in the medical literature which does not have any "questionable"
facts, analysis or conclusions--just one perfect study! I'd
love to hear from you this answer!

ERF

From: Pedro Oscar Rezende Cunha
Date: 08.08.99 05:20 GMT

Well, we all know that fire arms wounds and cars(and others
land vehicles) accidents are the major cause of deaths in
trauma. We also agree that since both are able to kill/hurt
people, they should be used under certains rules. We seem
to disagree when talking about the right to own a fire arm
or a car. The very principle of a fire arm is to hurt and
kill (maybe you don't agree, but think why every single day
fire arms are becoming more powerfull). Of course they can
be used to hunt, as a sport and so on, but it's not the main
use of them. The principle of a car is to take you around
faster. Of course it can be used to harm and kill, but it's
not the main use of them. So, you want to have an object that
the main objective is hurt and kill? Ok, so you must understand
that owning such thing is not for everyone. So, you want to
have something that will take you around faster? Ok,so you
ALSO must understand that owning such thing is not for everyone.

What's the difference between both situations ? The difference
is that who owns a car does not own it to promote violence.
Who owns a gun does , even if your goal to to protect yourself
from crimminals. I am not talking about banning fire arms,
i am just asking for people to stop and think that such thing
can't be owned as it was a fire work.I think that if youy
want to have a gun, you should prove that you can use it safely.
If we have to take drive lessons and make a tests { sight,
psico and driving)to be a driver,i think that is fair to ask
for lessons about owning a gun and tests to use it, not talking
about the need of a non-crimminal past. Since most ( 80% +)
of the deaths related to fire arms wounds are not related
to crimes, just making it harder to own a gun will slow down
the the deaths caused by fire arms .

Pedro Cunha
medical Student,
Brazil

From: Jim Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 15:54 GMT

The fact of the matter is, it's illegal for a felon to own
a handgun. It's illegal to carry them in cars within easy
access of the driver, it's illegal to sell or transfer them
without proper permits and it's illegal to brandish them in
a threatening manner.

The fact also is, that we do not enforce these laws. Felons
carry guns all the time..most of the crime involving firearms
is committed by persons with lengthy criminal records who
have no legal right to own or carry a firearm, yet they do
so.

Washington DC is the murder capital of the US and handguns
are virtually banned totally....yet they are used daily in
crimes by people who are then released on bail or parole.

We don't need any more legislation that only effects people
like me or other legal gun owners...we need to crack down
on the criminal element.

<<(The people stopped largely did not
get arrested--guns were only confiscated) Thus showing the
gun itself does make a difference over and above the person
who pulls the trigger ERF>>

You do understand that the police cannot confiscate a gun
unless it's being carried illegally....therefore, why were
the people were not arrested if the guns were confiscated?

<<So Jim--don't argue with me--argue with the science--interestingly,
this is something you too don't seem able to do--not yet a
single reference to support any of your conjectures and media-based
sound bites - ERF>>

The evidence (which is available from dozens of different
sources including the common almanac) shows that guns are
not a leading cause of accidental death. They rank somewhere
below poison gas and vapors and medical treatment. Handguns
were 0.1 per 100,000 and all firearms were 0.4.

Now how do you argue with that?

Jim Cowan
MO, Springfield

From: Jim Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 16:26 GMT

<<Exactly what study from the CDC was
found to be "questionable"?>>

On March 6, 1996, three physicians and noted criminologist
Don B. Kates were given an opportunity to testify before the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education.

Testimony focused on the CDC/NCIPC's use of "suspect data,
skewed study populations, dubious research models, and result-oriented
research". The panel was also informed that NCIPC researchers
violated accepted scientific practice by refusing to release
and make available to other researchers their original data
for further critical analysis -- an indispensable part of
genuine peer review.

In a letter to Senator Arlen Specter, Dr. William Waters
of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research protested the
"overt political activism of the NCIPC staff and their
federally-funded researchers.... [T]here seems to be a tacit
assumption -- perhaps even foundational concept -- among many
public health researchers that firearm prohibition/control
provides a ready solution to many of society's ills. We believe
that this view is expressed in the NCIPC's approach to the
problem of violence, since the research performed is fantastically
narrow in scope, excludes most of what is known about violence
in human societies from consideration or study, and is often
performed using abysmally poor methodology."

When supporters of NCIPC's findings and funding are challenged,
Dr. Waters observed, they take refuge in tautology: "There
seems to be a tendency on the part of those defending the
NCIPC to simply reiterate figures depicting the problem of
firearms violence/injury as justification for the agency's
existence."

Concerned about the political corruption of public health
research and possible violations of the public trust, DIPR
representatives sought to educate key members of Congress
and the Senate; others took the case directly to the public
via local and syndicated radio and television shows, including
National Empowerment Television (NET). A critical breakthrough
occurred when Dr. Timothy Wheeler, president of the California-based
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, appeared on the CBS
program This Morning to debate Dr. Jerome Kassirer, editor-in-chief
of NEJM. Dr. Kassirer had defended the supposed objectivity
of the CDC-supported gun studies in a previous NEJM editorial.

Dr. Kassirer's defense of the CDC provided an opportunity
for Dr. Wheeler to display, on camera, a copy of the anti-gun
issue of the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter cited above.
The cover of that issue, which bore the title "Women, Guns
and Domestic Violence," displayed an illustration of a menacing
handgun blasting away at the defenseless female symbol. Wheeler
was also able to share some of the "neutral" recommendations
offered within that tax-funded newsletter. Here is a sampling
from the publication:

Put gun control on the agenda of your civic or professional
organization. Release a statement to the media or explain
in your organization's newsletter why gun control is a women's
(or nurses' or pediatricians') issue. Ask TV and print media
to name the gun manufacturer in every story it runs involving
gun violence. Organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites,
perhaps with posters showing pictures of victims of gun
violence.... Work for campaign finance reform to weaken
the gun lobby's political clout. Boycott publications that
accept advertising from the gun lobby or manufacturers....
Get media attention for your events. Encourage your local
police department to adopt a policy prohibiting officers
from recommending that citizens buy guns for protection.

Federally subsidized CDC researchers also became directly
involved in anti-gun rights agitation. For example, NCIPC-funded
researchers and staff served as faculty at the Handgun Epidemic
Lowering Plan (HELP) "strategy conferences," held in Chicago
in 1993 and 1995. Those meetings assembled "like-minded individuals
who represent organizations [that seek to] use a public health
model to work toward changing society's attitude so that it
becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have
guns."

Dr. Katherine Christoffel, one of the founders of these conferences,
is known for her anti-firearms activism. Dr. Christoffel has
stated, "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated. We need
to immunize ourselves against them." Taking the pathological
perspective on guns to its most ridiculous extreme, Christoffel
has declared:

"Get rid of the cigarettes, get rid of the secondhand
smoke, and you get rid of lung disease. It's the same with
guns. Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you
get rid of deaths."

Another conference on firearms violence held in 1992 at the
University of Iowa was underwritten in part by CDC/NCIPC funds
which had previously been allocated to the study of rural
injuries and farm occupational hazards. Significantly, the
only non-academic faculty member invited to the 1992 conference
was Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. A similar event,
"National Violence Prevention Conference -- Bridging Science
and Program," was held at the University of Iowa in 1995;
the CDC/NCIPC co-hosted the event with the University of Iowa
Injury Prevention Research Center, and NCIPC Director Mark
L. Rosenberg offered the event's inaugural speech.

These are just a few of the reason the CDC's funding was
cut and congressional efforts made to keep the CDC in the
business of science and disease prevention and out of social
activism and anti-gun hysteria.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: Robert F. Smith
Date: 08.08.99 16:45

<<As has been stated before Robert...you
have no constitution right to own a car.
Jim Cowan>>

Legal Issues -
Second amendment : A well-regulated Militia being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

As the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said in an interview
in Parade magazine, this amendment protects the formation
of citizen militias and was not intended to ensure the absolute
right of anyone to keep any type of firearm

He argued that while we should not prohibit the legitimate
uses of guns for protection or recreation, guns should be
regulated in much the same way as cars if we are to minimize
firearm injuries and death.

Legal Issues - Courts
The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the Second Amendment
and the right to bear arms three times:

U.S. v. Miller,1939 -only federal laws that interfere with
state militias would be invalid
Presser v. Illinois in 1886, state laws are unaffected by
the Second Amendment.
Quilici b. Village of Morton Grove, 1972 upheld the right
of a local municipality to restrict gun ownership

Litigation - No federal court has ever invalidated any gun
control law as a violation of the Second Amendment.

From: Jim Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 16:48 GMT

Let's not forget one important concept. There is a body of
evidence that firearms prevent more crime and injury than
they cause.

Studies have shown that literally millions of incidents occur
annually in which impending rape or assault was avoided by
the mere presence of a firearm.

If we carry this out to the implications involved, it begs
the question, will banning legal firearms save lives or place
many citizens at the mercy of the criminal element.

I think this is the "hinge" point of the issue. If we are
going to deal with the science, let's deal with all of it.....exactly
what are the implications of firearm ownership...do they help
or hurt, and should they continue to be a constitutionally
protected right?

The most comprehensive study ever done on this issue was
the Kleck study in which data was examined from every county
in the United States. I would also add that unlike the CDC
studies, this data is available for independent review.

Florida State University Dr Gary Kleck, using surveys and
other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their
lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately
1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances,
the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning
shot.

Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot
their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms,
armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three
times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study
by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found
that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent
person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate"
for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as
high.

Those are the simple, verifiable facts gentlemen. You may
not like living in a violent society but you do, you may not
like guns, but they exist as a constitutional right. If you
wish to change that, you will need to do better than another
HCI hysteria campaign, and you really need to be certain you
are going to make things better, not worse.

Your concerns as trauma surgeons involve those 2,000 to 3,000
cited above while the rest of us, the potential victims, want
to keep the 98% avoidance factor.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: Jim Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 17:09

<<Of course, there is nothing in the
constitution that says anythign about >>maintaining an air
defense force either. There weren't very many cars around
(read: Zero) when the Constitution was drafted.
Jeff B., NREMTP >>

So ban the Air Force...you won't have any resistance from
constitutional scholars at all.

Guns however, are afforded a level of constitutional protection.

With whats going on right now, the gun control advocates
feel they are on a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric
citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness
of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it
focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather
than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the
execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners
and their evil instrumentality.

As criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates,
Jr. and former HCI contributor Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed
out, "[s]tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun
owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs
than non-owners.... Later studies show that gun owners are
less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality,
violence against dissenters, etc."

We must understand that the antipathy many liberals have
for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism.
This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in
The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just
society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by
minding their own business in the performance of their assigned
functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above
the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in
their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes
the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that
both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation.

The liberal elite believe that they are philosopher-kings.
They believe that the people simply cannot be trusted; that
they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that
left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist,
homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know
how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good
and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us
to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian
zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty
are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment
about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty,
to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere
words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.

Jim Cowan

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 08.08.99 17:17 GMT

<<You do understand that the police
cannot confiscate a gun unless it's being carried illegally....therefore,
why were the people were not arrested if the guns were confiscated?
>>

<< Washington DC is the murder capital of
the US and handguns are virtually banned totally....yet they
are used daily in crimes by people who are then released on
bail or parole. >>

To once again get beyond the sound bites-- In the first
year after the strict handgun bans were instituted in both
Wash D.C. and New York City, the homicide rate in both cities
plummeted by 25%--then rose back up to thier previous levels--interesting
that you and others using this statistic never mention or
try to reconcile this fact. After that first year, virtually
all guns used in violent crimes were no longer from NYC or
D.C. (in other words, the law was effective) but from outside
those cities--most commonly from right across the border in
Virginia, and second most commonly from Florida--the perfect
argument for uniform federal laws restricting access to handguns,
which would keep down this border-crossing phenomenon and,
as happened in the cities, homicides as well.

<< Quote: i.e. without the gun, other forms
of suicide are not used and the suicide largely does not happen--
Unquote: >>

Jim-- What this means is that since the total suicide rate
went down, those due to guns did not go on to try suicide
by other means, which is the classic argument against resticting
guns--that those using them for suicides will find another
means--had nothing to do with those using other means to begin
with--the numbers speak for themselves, and you continue assailing
them without any data of your own! We are all still waiting
for your data....

<< The evidence (which is available from
dozens of different sources including the common almanac)
shows that guns are not a leading cause of accident >>

Another classic dodge, again showing you are parroting others
(specifically this dodge comes out of Wayne LaPierre's book
Guns Crime and Freedom) rather than thinking for yourself.

Firearms are the second leading cause of death by injury
in this country--pure and simple and indisputable--after motor
vehicles--in 1997, something just over 35,000 deaths from
firearrms, and about 42,000 from motor vehicles. No other
single agent accounts for more deaths--again, very simple
and well documented--I gave you my source--the National Center
for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Md, Fingerhut and Warner,Injury
Chart Book, Health United States 1996-1997--while once again
you gave NO specific source--just the handy "a number of sources"--another
classic dodge promoting the Big Lie. No almanac says anything
different, including the 1998 World alamanac I have open on
my lap right now--check it!

You are comparing apples and oranges in a classic misrepresentation.
No one said a thing about "accidental"(meaning unintentional)
deaths--Those figures above are for TOTAL firearm deaths in
this country--not unintentional which accounts for only 4%
of those--so naturally by slyly injecting the outmoded and
misconstrued word "accidental" (which no authority anymore
uses, as it misrepresents "injury" which is largely not accidental),
you make a false and misleading point.

Total firearm deaths (which are mostly intentional--suicides
and homicides) must be compared with TOTAL motor vehicle deaths(which
are mostly unintentional) to be accurate and compare proper
entities, and they in fact they are the second highest cause
of death by injury. I refer you also to the 1998 Institute
of Medicine document Reducing the Burden of Injury which also
emphasizes this point and also points to the many authoritative
references documenting this.

The numbers are very clear--no other cause of injury death
(NOT just accidental death) comes near to 35,000--if you disagree,
please tell us what that is, and show us your SPECIFIC source,
as I have and we will both write to that massive conspiracy
against freedom, the Institute of Medicine, and tell them
they made a mistake--Jim Cowan says so!

Another point--those are national figures--in 20 states,
including Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Maryland, firearms are
now the leading cause of death by injury (Florida Dept of
Health, Tallahassee, and NCHS), having surpassed motor vehicles
in 1994 for the first time in our history! It is no coincidence
that those states with the least restriction on access to
firearms have the highest deaths from firearms (and again
most of those deaths are not of evil criminals lurking in
dark alleys--they are of innocent citizens like you and me
and have nothing to do with criminal activity) It is evident
you continue to refuse to reconcile your stance with the wealth
of data available--you are obviously very emotionally wedded
to your stance, and have lost all ability to be objective
and honest--so go ahead and continue to spout your slogans
and name-calling--at least the bulk of us on this list now
realize from whence you are coming....

<< These are just a few of the reason the
CDC's funding was cut and congressional efforts made to keep
the CDC in the business of science and disease prevention
and out of social activism and anti-gun hysteria. >>

Thank you--now once again Jim I will ask the questions you
have yet to answer--name a single published study out of the
CDC or NCIPC which was found to be "questionable"--you idi
not do that, Then please justify why an organization must
be censored from collecting data merely because you feel its
conclusions are biased?

Why do you not collect your own data to refute it, like science
has worked now for centuries? Since when is information of
any kind so bad we can not even be exposed to it? And--you
also still failed to name a single study in the medical literature
which is perfect and without "question" as to its data, analysis
or conclusions. You would have fit in very well in the Inquisition,
the last time I know of where data gathering was censored
just because a self-appointed group of judges did not like
what it showed. No, come to think of it--Hitler also did that
with his book burning

<< Let's not forget one important concept.
There is a body of evidence that firearms prevent more crime
and injury than they cause >>

Jim-- Once again I will not let you get away with this shoddiness--please
cite for us the study! This may work at your local American
Legion crewshop, but not here--tell us what these studies
are! You of course (I will do it for you, since obvioulsy
you do not know) refer to Gary Kleck's study out of Florida
State University, which was a telephone survey of almost 5000
gun owners (i.e. a biased group to begin with) indicating
a number of instances in which the gun was reported to be
used defensively in what was extrapolated to be some 2 million
instances nationally.

What you fail to reconcile this with, however, is that the
much more scientifically accurate National Crime Victimization
Survey of the US gov't found this to be only in the range
of 62,000 cases in a year nationwide--several orders of magnitude
off the mark (see the book Cease Fire, excerpted in Rolling
Stone Magazine March 10, 1994) Also, using your own reasoning
with the CDC--this study was criticized for its flawed methodology
by the Nat'l Research Council of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences
(obviously another left wing conspiracy!)--so according to
your argiment, that should mean that Florida State University
and Kleck should now be censored from ever resaearching this
topic again--it is clearly "questionable" is it not? I will
also bet you never even read this study, have you?

A Harris poll of Wisconsin citizens in 1992 showed over 80%
in favor of stricter control of gun access to citizens, and
guess what--38% of gun owners themselves also answered this
way! No poll, state or national has ever showed anything different!
The american population appears to also disagree with you!

ERF

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 08.08.99 18:11 GMT

<< The Supreme Court has addressed the issue
of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms three times:
U.S. v. Miller,1939 -only federal laws that interfere with
state militias would be invalid Presser v. Illinois in 1886,
state laws are unaffected by the Second Amendment. Quilici
b. Village of Morton Grove, 1972 upheld the right of a local
municipality to restrict gun ownership >>

Robert-- No--you left out the last Supreme Court 2nd Amendment
case--U.S. v. Lewis, upholding the challenged constitutionality
of the 1968 Gun Control Act But your poiints are all right
on--every court decision ever rendered on the 2nd amendment
has upheld the constitutionality of proper restricitoin of
access of the public to firearms. Thus, since only the courts
can interpret what the Constitution says, it is clear the
Constitution does not allow unrestricted ownership, use, sale
or manufacture of firearms. That of course is why firearm
advocates NEVER bring these laws to court--isn't that strange,
if they decry their illegality? Just another in a long line
of inconsistencies and flawed reasoning

ERF

From: James S. Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 19:14 GMT

I am puzzled. You seem to have access to information none
of the current researchers on firearms and homicides do. Which
"handgun ban" are you talking about? The Sullivan act took
place in New York in 1911. I am unable to find any decrease
and subsequent increase related to any legislation. Can you
please clarify this? Which years dropped and which years increased
based upon what legislation?

To address your point on weapons migrating across borders
let me cite a study specifically addressing this point. The
report "A Statistical Comparison of Homicide Rates in the
Prairie Provinces and Three American Border States" was released
in October, 1994.

It was concluded that the regulation of possession of personal
arms by private citizens has little or no effect on homicide
rates.

There is a common misconception in Canada that there are
no gun controls in the United States. Federal law, except
for the recently passed Brady Bill and control of interstate
and international trade in firearms, remains constrained by
the Second Amendment to the Constitution. However, several
states have enacted their own gun control laws, and there
is a plethora of local ordinances in those states which permit
them.

The gun laws of New York, and especially of New York City
are stringent by Canadian standards, and Canadian firearms
legislation appears to have been influenced by the older New
York statutes, of which the keystone, the Sullivan Law barring
the carrying of deadly weapons, dates from 1911.

A permit is required to purchase a handgun anywhere in New
York State, and applicants undergo a rigorous screening process
which may take up to six months. In New York City, permits
are also needed to purchase long guns for which the waiting
period is 30 days.

In spite of the restrictions, the state homicide rate is,
on average, five times higher than in Canada. In New York
City it is ten times the Canadian rate. There is no provable
explanation for this anomaly, but it is reasonable to suppose
that the presence of organized crime, a flourishing narcotics
trade, racial tension, extreme poverty and a collapsing public
education system are all contributing factors.

In the District of Columbia, the sale of handguns is prohibited,
permits are required to purchase rifles and shotguns, all
firearms must be registered and owners must have possession
permits.

No other jurisdiction in the free world has a more rigid
system, yet the homicide rate by 1991 had reached an astonishing
80 per 100,000 citizens - probably the highest for any jurisdiction
in an industrialized nation.

In the United States, the degree of control of firearms
is directly proportional to the amount of violence in a particular
jurisdiction. Thus Illinois, (especially Chicago) and Michigan
are quite restrictive, whereas several western states with
relatively peaceful societies are effectively "wide open".

Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho are mostly rural
and are economically, socially and demographically very similar
to western Canada. They were chosen for a comparative evaluation
partly for that reason and partly for their minimal legislation
relating to firearms.

All four states require permits to carry concealed weapons.
North Dakota bars machine guns and fully automatic rifles
and Montana permits possession of machine guns only on the
owner's premises. Minnesota has a seven day waiting period
for the purchase of a handgun, and permits are required to
carry them even if not concealed. The age of responsibility
for unsupervised use of a rifle or shotgun is 14 years in
Montana and 15 in the other states. Beyond that, the only
controls are practical, local ordinances with respect to being
armed at a public gathering, discharging a firearm within
town limits and so on.

Control of long guns was introduced in Canada in 1978. Because
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the three most westerly American
states have small populations, relatively small changes in
the number of homicides cause very erratic variations in the
rate per 100,000. In Minnesota, with a population of more
than 4 million, annual variations are minimal.

It was observed that homicide rates are decreasing in all
jurisdictions except Minnesota. A dramatic decrease in Idaho
reflects high rates (5.4 per 100,000) in 1978 and 1979, and
a very low rate (1.8) in 1991. However, even if these three
erratic values are rejected, the trend remains sharply downward.

Of the individual jurisdictions, Montana had the most homicides
per capita over the fifteen year period with an average of
3.8 per 100,000 citizens. Manitoba was second highest at 3.6,
followed by Idaho at 3.4, Saskatchewan and Alberta, each at
3.1, Canada at 2.7, Minnesota at 2.4 and North Dakota at only
1.3.

The consistently low rate for North Dakota is approximately
the same as in Japan, where there is virtually no private
ownership of firearms. Among the four states and the three
provinces studied, North Dakota is the most rural. It has
a slowly declining and presumably aging population, few of
the extractive industries that attract unattached young men
to Montana and Alberta, and no large cities. The majority
of North Dakotans have firearms in their homes.

To nullify the erratic effects of sampling from small populations,
the four American states were treated as one single entity,
and the three prairie provinces as another.

It was observed that, since the introduction of gun control
in Canada, there have been, on average, more murders per capita
per year in the prairie provinces (3.2/100,000) than in the
four northern tier western states, which had an average of
2.7 per 100,000 - the same as the average for all of Canada
during the same period. The rate for the four states combined
has been slowly rising. The trend for the prairie provinces
and for Canada has been falling.

The foregoing illustrates the absence of a simple cause and
effect relationship between crime rates and restrictions on
possession of firearms on the civilian population.

I do not have any detailed studies done on countries outside
of North America, but this data, based on readily available
public information, does suggest that homicide is a societal
problem, unrelated, or at least only marginally related, to
public access to firearms.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: James S Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 19:28 GMT

You are not familiar with the Kellerman studies? They were
underwritten by the CDC and were released as authoritative
studies on the effects of gun ownership. Once they were discredited,
the actions I have already explained were taken against the
CDC including a funding cut.

Since at least 1986, Dr. Kellermann and his associates, have
published several studies purporting to show that individuals
who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of
homicide than those who do not. The Kellermann studies have
been published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)
and JAMA amid great fanfare, and their "findings" have been
eagerly recited in the mainstream press.

One of Kellermann and company's most famous "findings," which
were reported in a 1986 NEJM paper, is that an individual
who keeps a gun in his home "is 43 times more likely to kill
a family member than an intruder." Although the study received
relatively little critical scrutiny, its chief finding was
quickly canonized by the press. One of the few qualified observers
who carefully examined the 1986 study was Dr. Edgar A. Suter,
chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR),
who refers to the dramatic risk-benefit ratio as Kellermann's
"43 times fallacy."

In a critical review published in the March 1994 Journal
of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Suter cited
"methodologic and conceptual errors" in the Kellermann study,
such as prejudicially truncated data (that is, convenient
omission of certain facts) and a reliance on non-sequiturs.
He also noted that in the study, "the correct methodology
was described but never used by the authors."

Moreover, by confining the study to the body count, Kellermann
failed to consider the protective benefits of guns. A proper
tally of those benefits, Suter noted, would include instances
that do not involve the use of lethal force. According to
Dr. Suter, "The true measure of the protective benefits of
guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical
costs saved, and the property protected -- not the burglar
or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% -- 0.2% of defensive
gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such
as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of
the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate
the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."

From: James Cowan
Date: 08.08.99 19:59 GMT

So when you claim Dr Klecks data source was a "phone poll"
what of the supporting analysis of incident files of 1979-1985
(National Crime Survey public use computer tapes ICPSR,1987b)
or is this just another example of you formulating strong
opinions on something with which you have a marginal familiarity?

I have been involved in this issue since 1968 and know quite
a bit about it. I find it amusing that you denigrate a survey
done by criminologists of almost 5,000 households in all the
states except Alaska yet cite a Harris poll as authoritative
regarding public opinion? Are we to only accept "polls" that
agree with you and ignore "surveys" that do not?

Actually, yes Virginia, I have read Klecks study at length.
Enough to know you are trying to snow your audience. Dr Kleck
has published multiple studies and has written a book on this
topic. (which I have not read) You are incorrect (again) His
work involves quite possibly the single most involved study
ever done on this issue.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: Eric Frykeberg
Date: 08.08.99 20:25 GMT

<< Dr Kleck has published multiple
studies and has written a book on this topic. (which I have
not read) You are incorrect (again) His work involves quite
possibly the single most involved study ever done on this
issue. >>

It's called Point Blank--I have read it, as well as the critique
of the data by the NRC

ERF

From: Dan Caruso
Date: 08.08.99 22:56 GMT

Pedro,

Being a card-carrying NRA member, I agree with you... Those
of us, who want to have handguns, who feel they can act responsible
with them, should have no problem, waiting to purchase a gun
if it involves classroom instruction, fire-line instruction,
mandatory waiting periods, etc...

Trying to ban all the guns will never happen... Sorry, to
those who think it will... There are though, many of us, who
feel responsible, who can take not to promote violence etc...
while owning a gun... It is, in the end, the person at the
end of the trigger, or knife handle, or baseball bat who is
the killer...

Dan Caruso
Phoenix, AZ

From: K Kepler
Date: 10.08.99 03:34 GMT

<< studies consistently show that, on the
average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious
jobs than non-owners....>>

The Bubbas here in Texas will be glad to hear that. George
Hennard must have been the exception, unless you consider
construction work prestigious. The illiteracy rate in Texas
is 12.3 % (3% higher than the national average), so I find
that data hard to swallow.

But even if this is true of the "average gun owner", it is
the non-average gun owner who is probably the most likely
to shoot the gun off along with his/her mouth. And if we are
all so safe from these folks, why is it that almost EVERY
public building/hospital/etc. has numerous signs posted everywhere:
"Firearms prohibited on these premises" ?

KKepler, RN

From: Arthur Lam
Date: 10.08.99 05:39 GMT

<<This is absolutely amazing...you
are now claiming banning guns will stop suicides? Is there
no end to the depths you handwringing gun control nuts will
sink? You appear to have an irrational fear of guns that is
so pervasive you are incapable of rationale dialog on the
subject.>>

I think the person who post this message should read it again.
From my point of view, I think the discription of "You appear
to have an irrational fear of gun control that is so pervasive
you are incapable of rationale(sic) dialog(sic) on the subject"
fits the gun nuts perfectly. It is truly amazing to me that
otherwise seemingly educated individuals do not see the absurdity
of free access to hand-guns without control or registration.

I would like to thank Dr. Fryberg and Dr. Smith for their
clear, lucid thoughts, ones that were outlined with logic
and backed up with data. It is also gratifying to read in
the last issue of Time Magazine that the public attitude is
finally changing. I sincerely hope that most physicians will
vote for representatives who support gun control, particularly
the hand guns. It is indeed high time that we recognize that
this common good is well worth the sacrifice of a few individual
rights.

Arthur Lam M.D.
Seattle, WA

From: Arthur Lam
Date: 10.08.99 05:41 GMT

<<The fact of the matter is, it's
illegal for a felon to own a handgun. ...We don't need any
more legislation that only effects people like e or other
legal gun owners...we need to crack down on the criminal element.>>

This is tiresome rhetoric that we have heard too many times.

We do not want to find the felon who owns a handgun illegally;
we want to prevent it before the fact. And how do you enforce
this law when even background is vehemently objected by people
like James Cowan.

We do not want to find out who carries the gun illegally
in the car; we want to make it impossible for anyone to have
a gun in the car so that road rage involving gun use can be
eliminated. And please tell me how you can enforce this law;
random search of every car?

We do not want to know about illegal transfer of guns; we
want every gun registered and transfer documented.

We do not want to arrest a person brandishing a gun; we want
to prevent that individual from ever having access to a gun.

The two little boys in Arkansas, the two students in Columbine
high school, the student in Springfield, Oregon, Miller in
the recent Alabama shooting. Please tell me who among them
are known felons?

Hand guns are banned in Washington D.C., but you can buy
them in Virgina and Maryland. Why don't you tell us how far
you have to go from D.C. to Virginia and Maryland? And who
don't you mention Canada who has similar culture but no guns
and a much lower homicide rate despite a much higher unemployment
rate?

We NEED more and better gun control legislation, and I sincerely
hope it will happen. I am tired of seeing the carnage in the
ER and in the OR.

Arthur Lam M.D.
Seattle, WA

From: Sandra Daniels
Date: 10.08.99 07:43 GMT

Interesting to read the debate thus far. I have the luxury
of living in Western Australia. We have very tight gun laws.
To purchase a gun one has to have signatures of two property
(farm) owners who will allow you to shoot on their property;
a rifle club membership or be involved in industry such as
professional hunter. Any person who owns a gun must keep it
under lock & key at all times unless in transit.

Victoria/New South Wales & Queensland have more liberal
laws and there is often a "migration" of guns from these states
but the penalties are high. A recent moratorium on high powered
guns required owners to surrender them for cash rebate unless
they had a definate use (hunters).

The up side to all this ..... criminal and homicidal/suicide
shootings are few. Most people go through their whole lives
without even getting to see a real gun. In emergency/orthopedic/spinal
cases I have seen only 7 cases in 18yrs.

Sandy Daniels
Perth, Western Australia

From: Daniel Edgecombe
Date: 10.08.99 21:02 GMT

This is in an interesting point but there are two interpretations
of your anecdote... is it because the gun laws are tight and
restrict the holding of firearms to responsible persons or
is it just because they restrict firearms by detering people
from buying and registering them that you have seen such a
low number of firearms incidents?

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 10.08.99 22:31

<< The up side to all this ..... criminal
and homicidal/suicide shootings are few. Most people go through
their whole lives without even getting to see a real gun.
In emergency/orthopedic/spinal cases I have seen only 7 cases
in 18yrs. >>

Sandy-- And amazing as it sounds, the walls of democratic
society have not come tumbling down in Australia, have they,
have they? Nor in England, Scotland, Germany, Sweden, Japan,
France, Spain, Canada, Norway, Belgium, etc...... In fact,
I would consider them stronger than in the U.S. where so many
of our young have been gunned down before their lives and
productivity to society have even begun! Where you do not
have to worry about protecting yourself from someone else
with a gun by getting your own gun--but by nobody having guns
to begin with! What a simpler and less violent solution!

ERF

From: Mary James
Date: 11.08.99 08:11 GMT

Dear readers, As a kid I use to read Readers Digest - Life
in these United States for the humorous stories that were
written about life.........it seems that the humor that was
found on those pages has now changed into sensational, media
magnet stories that would be better titled, "Trauma in these
United States"

As we rant and rave about guns and bombs and etc....etc.....we
must not forget the very fact that behind those weapons are
oxygenated brains with minds of some kind that probably use
to laugh at humorous stories too...... A gun is a gun....
A human is a very complex, thinking entity......I find it
hard to believe that this discussion is taking place on a
trauma-list......really.....haven't we all seen GSW's??? I
saw a little boy today go to surgery in our hospital for hours
because someone with a brain made the decision to use a machine
gun........

Trauma in these United States should not be about guns -
but rather about reality......GSW to right buttock with exit
wound..etc...etc.... Come on - let's get back to the patient's
bedside and talk to them and their families...leave the law
enforcement to the police...........Yeah??

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 11.08.99 13:23 GMT

Sure--this makes great sense! What business is it of physicians
to try to prevent disease and the loss of life--what jerks
Salk, Father Damien, Louis Pasteur, Sabin must have been to
think that prevention of disease and death should be a physician's
mission! This mindset--the ostrich syndrome--is what gives
our noble profession the reputation it has in the realm of
public health. Where was the medical profession in the fight
for improved safety engineering and seat belts in cars? Or
in the initial fight against AIDS (hint--fighting over whether
these people should even be treated for fear of the docs getting
infected!)? Or in combating drunk driving?

In these and so many other public health issues we were Johnny-come-latelies--it
took gressroots efforts from citizen groups who finally got
fed up with the carnage to take the ball themselves--no sense
ever waiting for the AMA or ACS to do it (they're still cowering
with their heads in the sand on firearm deaths!)--MADD, NHTSA,
Ralph Nader's group, etc are the real heros in so many life-saving
interventions--the public knows when and when not to depend
on the medical profession in the area of public health, and
here you see the mindset behind that!

ERF

From: Gianna Scanell
Date: 11.08.99 15:43

I totally agree. Before being a physician, each and everyone
of us is a person, member of our crazy society. While some
of us argue that guns don't kill, many innocent people get
kill by guns, in the hands of sick pathologic individuals
who always have existed and always will, but who now have
free access to guns. The people who want to keep guns around
are also responsible for these killings.

From: Mary James
Date: 11.08.99 16:01 GMT

How you take my message out of context........it is hard
to understand. Obviously, there is no easy "fix" to the fact
that someone can shoot harmless children.... Prevention of
terrible crimes is obviously important but without the exact
germ to attack which antibiotic would you give?? I'm sorry
if I offended you.....it was not my intention.....just had
a long day......I really do believe that prevention programs
are extremely important......just not sure if there is a program
that can be developed out of these tragedies....... MJ

From: Robert F. Smith
Date: 11.08.99 17:40 GMT

I was thinking about the pleas to stop talking about firearm
violence on this list.

One of the things that makes me most proud to be a part of
the Trauma Community is the way these practitioners have changed
the traditional medical model. They have accepted the difficult
challenge that simply treating each wound as a medical problem
is an insufficient response to the epidemic we are facing.
Instead of taking the easier traditional doctor or nurse roles,
many have taken leadership roles in trying to do something
to make these injuries less likely recur or happen primarily.

For those of you who feel it is boring or inappropriate to
discuss firearm violence on this list I guess I would ask
you to think about what it is like for our patients. When
it is no longer an issue of interest to them then I won't
talk about it anymore.

I've refrained from joining this particular thread until
now, although members may recall my initiating a similar discussion
a year or so ago. The main reason for my present abstinence
is that I don't have much to add to the well-rehearsed positions
expressed on either side, at least not this time. I've seen
this movie before, and I know how it ends; or, rather, doesn't
end. Inappropriate? Certainly not. Boring? Well, yeah, a little.
Any thread'll get that way after awhile; don't be offended.
Get used to it. I bore tons of people.

<<For those of you who feel it is boring
or inappropriate to discuss firearm violence on this list
I guess I would ask you to think about what it is like for
our patients. When it is no longer an issue of interest to
them then I won't talk about it anymore.>>

I have thought about our patients. Seems to me that the
best way to serve them might be found in avenues other than
debating the Second Amendment over and over again on a rather
modest and isolated medical list server. Batch up the arguments
in your favor and forward them to your elected representatives.
Join (or start) a local community action committee with similar
convictions as yours. Write a letter or two to the editor
of your local paper. Spend more time with your kids. Mind
you, it doesn't matter much to me personally whether you post
or not; I started deleting most of these messages unread about
three days ago. But I'll ask you: how many minds has this
thread, on this list, changed?

Pret Bjorn, RN, etc.
Bangor, ME, USA

From: Charles Krin
Date: 11.08.99 23:31 GMT

<<Interestingly, such major organizations
as the American Medical Association, the American Association
for the Surgery of Trauma and even the American College of
Surgeons have specifically refused to take either any stance
at all on this critical issue (AAST, AMA) or such a watered
down "stance" that it accomplishes less than nothing (ACS)
You explain it-- I sure can't >>

OK, Rick, let's go over this one again. We are just gonna
have to disagree on this one.

First: Most weapon related violence is perpetrated by folks
who already have had problems with the law. It's common enough
now that it doesn't even make the evening news, but contributes
to the gruesome statistics that you have quoted in the past.
Those episodes where the violence hits the news are a reflection
of aberrations in suburbia. This could even cover the recent
tragedy in Atlanta, where it turns out that the chap's previous
wife and mother in law died under mysterious circumstances
several years ago....

Second: Laws already on the books relating to those folks
(previous felons) are tough but not enforced on a regular
basis. Witness the "400,000 denied gun purchases" recently
trumpeted by the President. Where are the corresponding "400,000
weapons related convictions?" It is a US Federal Felony for
a person with legal or mental disabilities (including at this
time persons convicted of misdemeanor abuse) to even hold
or attempt to purchase a firearm or ammunition of any sort,
punishable by up to 5 years in a Federal Penitentiary for
each separate offense (one hand gun and a box of 25 cartridges
could be considered as up to *26* separate offenses!). If
those denials were not proper, then you have up to 400,000
folks with their CIVIL RIGHTS being violated. Despite the
number of folks around here being locked up for repeat offenses,
I don't remember the US Attorney getting involved in any of
the cases, despite a "slam dunk" conviction...e.g., you were
convicted of this crime, you have a previous history, you
used a weapon, therefore the US Marshall's Service will be
waiting for you in three years when you've done your state
time...

Third: Much of the weapons related violence involving young
people revolves around the money available through the drug
trade, which in turn is related to the current enforcement
policies of the Federal and State governments. Change the
rules, slack up on the small dealers and users, clear the
jails and penitentiaries of folks convicted of small time
drug use/abuse, and go after the ones using the guns and masterminding
the big shipments. Then you should see a concomitant reduction
in gun violence. It worked in Boston, and Kansas City...In
addition, what makes you think that the folks bringing in
drugs can't afford to bring in weapons? They've got nothing
to lose from disobeying the law, do they? What makes you think
that they will obey any new ones?

Fourth: The much ballyhooed problem of "running gun fights"
by people who applied for and got Concealed Carry Permits
has not happened! There has been *ONE* incident that has made
the national news in the past 5 years, from Texas, and some
evidence that he should not have gotten his permit. The "Shoot
the Carjacker" Law here in Louisiana was another that was
supposed to provoke a rash of shootings...there has been *ONE*,
and that was ruled to be justified. On the other hand, prior
to that law going into effect, there was a publicized carjacking
somewhere in Louisiana at least once a month, often with the
owner/driver being seriously hurt in the process. Rick, how
many CCW folks in the State of Florida have gotten in trouble
in the last 10 years? And what happened several years ago,
that resulted in many of the rental car companies changing
the way that they marked their cars? (Hint for those of you
who missed this: the bad guys stopped going after folks who
looked like they might be Florida residents (and therefore
might be armed) and started to concentrate on folks from out
of the state, and those in rental cars....after a bunch of
rich Germans were assaulted, the rental agencies reportedly
stopped clearly marking their cars...)

Fifth: It was the law abiding subjects of Australia that
turned in their weapons, by and large, at a marked disadvantage.
I've been given to understand from another party that personal
violence in Australia has actually gone up somewhat since
that time...while recently released reports (In this week's
JAMA, as noted in the national news) indicate that the number
of kids carrying weapons and involved in violence in schools
has actually dropped by a third or more in the past five years...and
the FBI figures that gun violence continues to drop here in
the US. Despite the "right wing" label that our Australian
correspondent slapped on the gun owners, I understand that
there is a movement at the local levels to oust some of the
"left wing" folks who wanted more gun control. It comes down
to philosophy: the US was founded on the idea of individual
freedom and responsibility...and those of us who still support
those ideals are labeled as bad people. The current denizen
of the Wight House (and yes, that's a joke...) is as much
a Socialist as Lenin when push comes to shove...the idea of
"Big Brother" knowing what is best for the individual, and
taking responsibility and freedom away from the individuals
to "assure the greatest good for the greatest number" of people...I'll
invoke Niven's Fourth law in response: "Freedom times Security
equals some constant. The more Security you have the less
Freedom you enjoy..."

Now explain to me again why I should give up a hobby that
I happen to enjoy? I have received extensive training via
the military and the local law enforcement types on the care
and feeding of the weapons, I keep mine locked up when not
in use, I enjoy getting out and punching holes in cans and
paper targets on an irregular basis, and I am working with
my mother in law, and brother in law to ensure that my sons
and nieces can be trusted with firearms, as well as being
responsible for their own selves when they get old enough:
this includes schooling on proper care and use of the weapons,
as well as teaching them to hunt responsibly. (Without hunters
here in the central South, the deer population would soon
grow too large and start to starve....the other major predators
which used to help keep them in check having been long eliminated...)
Keeping the two legged predators in check has been subjected
to some interesting statistical analysis by both Gary Kleck
and John Lott...and again, what's happened in most of Florida
in the past five years, Rick?

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 12.08.99 00:42 GMT

<< First: Most weapon related violence is
perpetrated by folks who already have had problems with the
law. >>

Not true--again, argue with the FBI--after all, what could
they possibly know about it--by the way, you gave no reference
for where you got this info from?

<< Third: Much of the weapons related violence
involving young people revolves around the money available
through the drug trade, >>

Not true--most involves regular citizens like you and I in
episodes of domestic disputes, love triangles, etc--you keep
straying off the track, and never give any references for
where your info can be verified--I wonder why?

<< Fifth: It was the law abiding subjects
of Australia that turned in their weapons, by and large, at
a marked disadvantage. I've been given to understand from
another party that personal violence in Australia has actually
gone up somewhat since that time.. >>

Oh finally! A reference! And I know this is about as good
as it will get!

<< Now explain to me again why I should give
up a hobby that I happen to enjoy? I have received extensive
training via the military and the local law enforcement types
on the care and feeding of the weapons, I keep mine locked
up when not in use, I enjoy getting out and punching holes
in cans and paper >>

Again--a favorite tactic--set up a straw man just so you
can knock it down. Neither I nor anyone on this list ever
once said you should give up your gun, or that all guns should
be banned--so you are arguing with yourself

<< us who still support those ideals are
labeled as bad people. The current denizen of the Wight House
(and yes, that's a joke...) is as much a Socialist as Lenin
when push comes to shove...the idea of "Big Brother" knowing
what is best for the individual, and taking responsibility
and freedom away from the individuals to "assure the greatest
good for the greatest number" of people...I'll invoke Niven's
Fourth law in response: "Freedom times Security equals some
constant. The more Security you >>

Anyone else feel like me, that somehow I've been transported
to the Twilight Zone?

ERF

From: Arthur Lam
Date: 12.08.99 01:33 GMT

Dear Dr. Krin, when are you going to understand that we have
no objection to you owning a gun, a "responsible" individual
with proper training. But I object to you (used in a generic
sense) losing control in a rage (Miller in the recent incident
in Alabama), object to you leaving it around so kids or anyone
irresponsible can get access to (Jonesboro, Arkansas, etc.),
object to anyone without the maturity to handle a gun (Springfield,
Oregon). We need to register every gun, licensed every gun
owner, none of which would prevent you from pursuing your
hobby.

By the way, if you read the JAMA article, it suggests that
the decrease in gun violence coincides with the passing of
the Brady law.

Arthur Lam M.D.
Seattle, WA

From: John Holmes
Date: 12.-08.99 01:49 GMT

<< Fifth: It was the law abiding subjects
of Australia that turned in their weapons, by and large, at
a marked disadvantage. I've been given to understand from
another party that personal violence in Australia has actually
gone up somewhat since that time.. >>

Well Dr Krin, if interpersonal violence has gone up in Australia,
those of us who live and work here haven't noticed it! The
data published by the Australian Institute of Criminology
show a significant decline in homicides since the firearm
recall legislation from 2.0 /100,000 (1996) to 1.7 / 100,000
(1998) (we are NOT claiming causality here).

In Australia 21% of homicides are committed using firearms.
Interestingly, in the Northern Territory, where firearm ownership
is widespread and relatively unregulated, the firearm related
homicide rate is 5 times the national average.

Thanks Rick for flying the flag of sanity over there in the
States. But as Pret says - I doubt if anybody's opinions have
been altered by the large correspondence on this subject recently.
There seems to be a peculiarly American mindset on this issue
- unfortunately (to quote a cliche) there are none so blind
as they who will not see. One thing's for sure however. -
it's great to live in an environment where people are largely
free from the fear of being blown away. In fact for most of
the time we don't even think of it here!

OK, I didn't mean to restart this argument, but, Rick, the
things that are needed to "eliminate guns in America" (as
HGI among others have put it) would require:

A: total BAN on all firearms AND ammuntion-ownership, sale
and manufacture.

B: total confiscation of all known firearms without compensation
to the legitimate owners (even the equivalent of the pittance
that owners of condemned property in the path of the new freeway
receive would bankrupt your efforts).

C: the equivalent of a door to door search of America looking
for unregistered firearms.

The worst part about it is that anyone with the knowledge
of a high school chemistry lab and metals shop would be able
to start a black market, not to mention the folks bringing
stuff in from outside the country....you don't think that
they'd be any more willing to obey the firearms laws than
the drug laws? (I know, you're going back to eliminating "known
victim violence." Funny, but most of the stuff we see here
in Northeast Louisiana that falls under the heading of "known
victim" also falls under the heading of "drug related.")

Now, how can you expect me to reconcile that with the idea
that you don't want to take mine away since I've been "properly
trained?" In this day and age of "political correctness,"
I'd rather not be known as "elitist" -- it sets you up as
another target..

..

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 13.08.99 13:18

I'll say it again--you don't seem to get it I and most other
responsible organizations (read the EAST and AAP position
papers for starters--you really might learn something!) have
never advocated "banning" or "eliminating" all guns--we have
very clearly been advocating a greater level of control of
the access and use by the general population. we all agree
that there is no need to ban all guns--most do not significantly
contribute to death and injury. Once again--you seem to like
arguing with yourself!

From: Robert F. Smith
Date: 13.08.99 13:41

Charles, Listening is a skill you should think about developing.
Or in your case maybe reading.

Please do a couple things. 1) Pull up the quote from the
list discussion where anyone (other than you) has talked about
"eliminating all guns". 2) Instread of regaling us with your
personal opinions belilefs and insights as to the true nature
of crime in America, maybe you could actually look up some
facts from the NCJB, FBI or Unifrom Crime reports or data
from your own State or municipality. Then share that information
with us as well as the source and how to get it.

In your professional life do you like to base your treatment
on readings of textbooks and peer review journals or do you
prefer to swap anecdotes with the guys?

R. Smith, M.D.

From: Thomas Anthony Horan
Date: 13.08.99 15:09

The only good sense that Charles has written in several weeks
of diatribe is contained in A and B, a shame he is too blind
to believe it-- oh I Know the constitution etc etc --- In
Britian they have speakers corners for people like Krin who
can exercise their freedom to speak , while entertaining the
passers bye. However, the entertainment value of his repetitious
nonsence has long since past.

From: Amador
Date: 13.08.99 20:50 GMT

why not take away all restrictions on owning any arms in
the US? (it is easy for me to say as I live in Australia and
am happy to be here), but the right to bear arms, methinks
was originally thought with things like muskets and independence
from a foreign power in mind, since the NRA wants to extend
it to Uzis and what not, why not go all the way and allow
any kind of weapon to be owned by a US citizen (within the
US that is). yes, this is sarcasm.

The US firearm culture is a good example of what not to do
for the rest of the civilized world, I, for one, am scared
enough to never plan to live there or to raise children there
and I think of myself as an average law abiding citizen without
any weapons, if the NRA wants to create a social climate where
only law abiding citizens with weapons and criminals with
weapons can co-exist, and your politicians allow it, I guess
it's your problem but I sincerely hope that this philosophy
is not exported elsewhere.

From: Mande Toubkin
Date: 13.08.99 20:28 GMT

Sandra you have no idea how lucky you are i see mor gunshot
wounds in one month than you have seen in 17 years i live
in Johannesburg, South Africa where it is easy to get hold
of a weapon for a few rands probably 20 dollars. Iwork at
1 if the 3 level one trauma units in our area and we only
see patients who have medical insurance so our numbers are
nothing compared to the state hospitals. Gunshot wounds don't
even cause a stir any more.

I have added our stats for the Milpark Trauma Unit for you
to see enjoy the tight control so many lives are lost in south
africa because of poor control We have it so bad here that
even our gorilla at the zoo in johannesburg was shot by a
fleeing suspect.

Being a UK graduate and having worked in SA and I was on
the specialist register in General surgery there. I know exactly
what you are talking about. Every few years I go to visit
ex-colleagues there, the level of violence gets worse. Last
April where we were staying there were 8 murders a day. I
have watched the violence escalate from the sharpened bicycle
spoke to the rocket launched grenade and the AK 47 in little
over 15 years. That is why the Docs and the Nurses from that
beautiful country are sadly getting out. I see no solution
to it.

Danny McGeehan
Stafford, UK

From: James Cowan
Date: 14.08.99 00:39 GMT

I have already provided so many facts everyone is sick of
hearing about it. I have replied off-list to these last few
messages but it is apparent to me that this is an emotional
debate and facts do not enter into it except as cannon fodder
for a point- counterpoint debate. To me the issue is straight
forward.

1. Gun control doesn't work. Only total gun bans would make
any difference at all and that will never happen in the USA.
Our most violent cities have the strictest gun laws..yet all
we hear are excuses for why they fail and why we need more
and more of something thats failing.

2. The problem with violence in our society isn't the tool
the violent use. The problem is the violent people. I own
many guns, I have never shot anyone. The idea is repulsive
to me. It is to all decent people. The idea is not repulsive
to the violent. Their inability to get a gun doesn't stop
them from that ideation. One of the problems we have with
self-defense courses is that good people can't shoot their
attackers even to save their own lives. They simply don't
have it in them. Obviously we are dealing with two strata,
two levels of humanity. As simplistic as it sounds, it does
seem to come down to the good guys and the bad guys.

3. The issue can't be reasonably debated because of the massive
misinformation campaign here in the states. To have some of
the users of this list to formulate such opinions about guns
is similar to my formulating strong opinions on surgical techniques.
Examples are the famous "43 times more likely" myth, the "main
cause of death" myth, the "dangerous to own" myth...none of
which are true, yet are continually cited and questioning
them is like questioning the Bible in a Southern Baptist convention...it
results in a level of hysteria that eliminates any possibility
of reasonable discourse.

Those of us who own guns and who shoot for sport frequently,
are often simply amazed by some of these ideas..like what
constitutes an "assault rifle" and that they are somehow more
dangerous than other rifles. (the winner of the house to house
combat competition at Gunsite a few years back used a 30-30
level action rifle, he beat all the "assault rifle" users)
More hits, more accurate, better score. Yet even users of
this list have claimed semi-automatic rifles have no purpose
other than to kill. (Virtually all of the annual competition
in many sports requires semi-autos)

So what it boils down to is an issue that is not debatable
until both side try to see the other point of view and do
it from an informed stance, not one of emotion.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: Ken Mattox
Date: 14.08.99 01:10 GMT

I have not gotten into this discussion for fear of being
misunderstood and it is as polarized and full of emotion as
religion, sex, birth control, abortion, and politics. But
here goes.

I would totally concur that in any are of society there
must be societal, governmental, neighborhood, and individual
responsibility. I would like to substitute the word responsibility
for control, in all of the discussions on this issue I have
read here the past 3 weeks. It seems to me that a major area
of breakdown is in this area of responsibility. We can debate
until the cows come home about the WHY, but major institutions
in this country have undergone tremendous change: home, church,
court, schools, entertainment, participant sports, spectator
sports, etc. The institutions which used to engender personal
responsibility have often not done so.

Second, very little discussion has occurred here regarding
our criminal justice system, which by the way, in our method
of protecting personal liberties, I am convinced is the very
best in the world. However, justice is NOT swift and often
not sure. One can debate whether one is judged by their peers,
whether there is ethnic equality in the courts, and whether
the rich have a better chance of not paying for their crimes
except with dollars for lawyers. I do not want to focus on
those issues. I wish merely to raise the question of gun irresponsibility
due to a breakdown in justice, whatever that involves. I do
know that I saw more public display of guns in open souks
in Saudi Arabia, than I have ever seen in this country. Purchase
of a gun, knife, sword, etc., was very very easy. However,
use of those instruments, often carryovers from past wars,
to shoot another human was and is very very very rare. For
if one is caught after killing another human (and being caught
is virtually always sure as there is no place to run) one
looses their own head at then end of the noon prayer on Friday.
Justice is sure and swift and public. I am sure that many
on this web site would give many arguments against this form
of justice, and I very well might lead the pack, but use of
guns there in no way rivals our per capita shooting of fellow
man. One might also argue that occasionally innocent persons
are put to death when justice is too fast in the Middle East.
I could equally argue that many more innocents are put to
death by the murderers in the West due to a lax criminal justice
system. The reason for this argument is to put onto the table,
some additional issues which were not part of the vitriolic
and polarized repetition of bias. k

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 14.08.99 14:31

Dr Mattox-- As I said in a number of my posts, of course
it is important to fight crime and have swift and sure justice,
and of course many agree that this is not ideal in our country--and
also that individuals must be held accountable for their behavior--but
it is interesting how you fail to relate that to the issue
of the horrendous level of firearm deaths in the U.S. which
far outstrips that of any other industrialized democracy in
the world. I can though--clearly those who own, sell or manufacture
those firearms most contibuting to death and injury are not
being held accountable for the deaths those firearms cause--our
mindset is that these deaths (of which only a minority occur
in a criminal context--less than 20%) are simply a price to
be paid for "freedom" (said as the shoulders shrug and the
hands go up in the air in a gesture of "How can we be blamed
for that?")

So Dr Mattox--those are very good points you bring up

From: Ravi
Date: 14.08.99 16:44

James, In my community (particularly the state of Tamil nadu,South
India) with a population about five times any one of the states
in the US, the only thing I can get with some difficulty,
is an application form for a small gun -revolver, forget pistols.
After that, the application winds its way to the senior most
cop, the Director General of Police, and then it is rejected.
Period. No gun.

In 25 years of surgical practice I have not seen a single
serious GSWs. I have seen two minor injuries when some one
with a gun (license got in those 'good old days') accidentaly
pressed the wrong button, treated as out patients.

So, no guns no GSW. No guns, no violent crime culture. At
the worst I have seen a few knifings. Bleeding noses. Not
that every one is a saint. But the violence is limited to
a lot of shouting till one person gets a sore throat. The
police do get their share of murders -usually crimes de amour
-crimes of passion, but too few to make life interesting.
They watch 'COPS' or similar serials on TV to get their kicks.
The cops dont carry guns.

DISCLAIMER---I have no published data. I have not published
this. I have no 'proof' as a scientist. But have been in a
busy surgical practice in a large facility till I got bored.
So, in the spirit if a purist if a list member wants to get
violent, flame me on the list till you get sore fingers typing.
But no one dies unless bored to death.

Ravi
Madras, South India,
on the Coromandel coast where the monsoon has set in.

From: James Cowan
Date: 14.08.99 16:44 GMT

<<world. I can though--clearly those who own, sell
or manufacture those firearms most contibuting to death and
injury are not being held accountable for the deaths those
firearms cause>>

That's because from a scientific standpoint, you cannot
draw a cause and effect relationship. That is unless you also
wish to draw similar parallels in other aspects of death and
trauma....drunk driving caused by cars, domestic violence
caused by marriage or cohabitation, falls caused by altitude,
etc, etc, etc....

Since you wish to make changes, the burden of proof falls
to you to show a cause and effect relationship as well as
a change to benefit ratio supported by factual evidence..in
exactly the same way you would require of a medical procedure
alteration or a policy change.

The presence of physicians does not cause malpractice, but
if physicians were banned, logically we would have no physicians
harming patients. Cars don't cause drunk driving, but if we
banned cars we would have no drunk driving, guns don't cause
gun violence, but if we ban guns we will stop gun violence.

All of the above are true, but are they rational? The same
argument used for one can be used for another.

Draw a cause and effect, prove it and you have a case..otherwise
you are simply offering up another opinion in the endless
stream.

From: James Cowan
Date: 14.08.99 17:49 GMT

That is not the experience here. Our societies are different
and we live under different cultural influences. Here our
major cities have a real problem with gang violence. The situation
you refer to in which people shout at each other? Here it
is considered a mark of significant disrespect and if the
offender is allowed to walk away unharmed, it is considered
a black mark against the machismo or masculinity of the individual
being shouted at. We have rap music that glorifies the culture
of violence, we have school children who think they are cowards
unless they "punch out" people whom they disagree with, and
from there it escalates into shooting someone that punched
you out. Our children are slipping back into the "gang wannabe"
culture and when you try to stop it they think you as a parent
simply "aren't cool" you "don't understand". From that climate
of parental alienation is an easier jump into the real thing,
drive-bys, drugs, violence to get what you want.

We have bumper stickers on cars that say "Parent of Honor
Roll Student, Hillcrest High" and other bumper stickers that
say "My kid can beat the crap out of your honor roll student"
It's a different culture with different values and some parents
are contributing to the problem.

Our law enforcement personnel refer to "crip gunships" in
which heavily armed african-americans guard drug shipments
from within heavy American automobiles, generally very expensive
ones at that.

Their logic is "why should I work at Mc Donalds for 5 bucks
a hour when I can do this for $5,000 a week?" "OK, so I get
shot, everybody dies someday". The police refer to it off
the record as NON crime. (Nig*** On Nig***) but of course
they deny it later. The AA kids who go to school are accused
of "acting white" and are ridiculed by their peers.

The police here know that stopping a crip gunship will result
in a shootout, guaranteed. All the occupants have multiple
felony arrests, are legally out of jail and are illegally
armed and have nothing to lose.

To them, this is a business, nothing more, nothing personal.
They are not dependent upon local firearm availability, they
can get guns anywhere, Mexico by the case, South America,
it doesn't matter. The US has thousands of ports of entry
and enough border patrol to cover 5% of them. A single cargo
carrier off one merchant ship provides enough drugs and guns
to keep a "territory" stocked for months and getting caught
is simply the cost of doing business, plus there is a very
good chance you will be released within months anyway. Bikers
generally are aware that you can make a run into Mexico and
bring up enough coke to kick back for a year. Getting arrested
is a risk, but the real risk is getting shot up in a drive-by
shooting from people who also sell drugs in what they consider
their "territory". The police are a distant problem.

The gun violence Eric cites is significantly due to this
atmosphere, illegal use of firearms already illegally owned.
The police do what they can but they work for a society sinking
into chaos and stratified into "people who have" and "people
who take." Guns are the tools used by both sides, one to defend
and one to take....gun control only effects the people who
defend.

OK, we have too many gun deaths and too many violent acts
by gun violence. Nobody who honestly knows whats going on
seriously thinks passing another gun control law will make
any difference at all.

The curious thing is....the one thing all these people fear,
the organized crime figures, the gangs, the routine drug couriers
(who throw in a case of Glocks per buy)...is legalization
of drugs. Their sole fear. The market goes away overnight.

But we then trade gun trauma for drug abuse. Is it a good
trade? I don't know. I do know that our current state is similar
to the crime caused by our efforts to ban liquor in the past.
Maybe we will eventually be willing to try something new....

There you go James--now you've got the idea--I'm glad you
finally agree In the absence of guns, total deaths are reduced
significantly, since most deaths (most homicides and suicides
in the U.S.) are caused by guns. And this is not conjecture--there
are a huge number of studies showing this to be true--The
Tale of Two Cities study in 1988 in NEJM is a starter (see?
I back up my assertions with referenced facts,,,)

Of course, once again you are setting up your straw man--no
one on this list is even advocating that "we ban guns"--just
reduce the extent to which certain guns (mostly handguns)
can be accessed by the general population You keep wanting
the debate to be something it is not--I guess because you
can't argue with the real issues

<< But we then trade gun trauma for drug
abuse. Is it a good trade? I don't know. I do know that our
current state is similar to the crime caused by our efforts
to ban liquor in the past. Maybe we will eventually be willing
to try something new.... Jim Cowan Springfield, MO >>

Jim-- How about letting the rest of this list in on a hint
about your background? This is a list of healthcare providers--are
you one? Do you have any experience whatsoever in the care
of injured people? Have you ever in your life gotten up in
the middle of the night to directly care for a victim of a
gunshot wound? If so, when was the last time? How many do
you treat in a day, week, or year? It helps to know from whence
your ideas come--it tells us the degree of credibility of
these ideas. Words are easy. Armchair warriors are a dime
a dozen Just wondering....

Eric Frykberg, MD
Jacksonville, Fl

From: Mathias Kalkum
Date: 15.08.99 23:49 GMT

Ken, to me the whole discussion seems to be futile, just
because of a few simple facts (some of them were pointed out
by you and others very well):

* itīs not a gun that kills, but people.
* unfortunaltely people tend to kill other people more and
more often
* this is going ahead with a loss of influence / acceptance
of major moral institutions like home/religion/sporting life/etc...

But I disagree in your conclusion, you tear out of the saudi
arabian example: from a european point of view, the US penalty-system
is very harsh - but it is not able to lower firearm violence
rates. I strongly believe the only way to achieve this aim
is to ban guns strictly! It is the only way of prevention
that works. This having said I will go on and delete most
of the messages regarding this thread unread.

Well, since we are still talking about this, I have some
questions. By the way, I lost a family member (16-year-old
honor student/class president) in a senseless double homocide
(unsolved) involving fatal GSWs.

How many GSW deaths are there each year? How many are accidental?
Suicide? Homocide?

I am assuming the most are homocides. The ones that are pre-meditated
and are committed by antisocial sociopaths...those are the
ones I want to focus on. I realize that victims are just as
dead no matter what kind of killer they encountered. (see
above). I am suggesting a sort of differential approach to
the problem. Killing cannot be stopped, I do not believe,
by broad, sweeping bans, or by types of punishment. But perhaps
we can arm ourselves with information to recognize a sociopath
EARLY, before the arc of violence leads to loss of life. For
example, a red flag in kids is cruelty to animals. Why do
we ignore this behavior, when we know the eventual outcome?
Stanton Samenow (Inside The Criminal Mind) points out the
following MYTHS:

Criminals don't know right from wrong/Criminals are the hapless
victims of oppressive social conditions/Crime is contagious/Crimes
of passion are cases of temporary insanity/Watching violent
television programs brings out violent behavior in children.
He believes that "to embark on a program that is truly corrective,
we must begin with the clear understanding that the criminal
chooses the crime." Doesn't this suggest that the criminal
would find a way to kill, even if he did not have a gun? Have
there been any studies attempted on violence before the making
of guns?

How can anger be recognized early, early, early...before
it is so enormously costly to society? Are we able to intervene
in any way?

The entire report is large but it is interesting. Contrary
to what has been stated here homicides are down. Homicide
as a cause of death ranks 13th, lower than kidney disease.
Where the line is being drawn here for purposes of a "trauma"
discussion, they define "injury related deaths" of 146,000
(out of over 2 million deaths) 32,000 of which were firearm
related. 54% of that number were suicides, 41% were homicides.
(Firearms deaths are down 5.4% in the last year)

The moral of that story? That big Mac & fries is going to
kill you way before a MAC-10 does.

Age related data....(Robert, you may wish to avert your eyes):

Highest rate of homicides? Black males 15-24 at 104 per
100,000 Highest rate of suicides?
White males over 85 at 45 per 100,000.
Overall rate was 12 per 100,000.

Of course, overall the age related data shows accidental
deaths down 20%, homicides down 6.7% and suicides down 4.8%.

From: Rachel Rene
Date: 16.08.99 05:47

I am shocked at the percentage of GSW suicides. This is orders
of magnitude greater than what I would have guessed. Would
a gun ban or have prevented 17500 suicides last year? Doubt
it. Of course this does not address near fatalities and injuries,
emotional and financial cost related to GSWs.

From: John Holmes
Date: 16.08.99 06:07 GMT

Mr Cowan - have you ever heard of the non sequitur argument?
From your line of reasoning you could just as easily say that
being born has a higher mortality rate than homicide.

Get real - it's ludicrous for you to compare organic disease
with homicide. If you want to be intellectually honest then
compare like with like - such as homicide rates in countries
with gun control vs homicide rates in your country. .

I was trying to follow your argument that banning things
solve unwanted problems, like banning cars solve drink driving
etc... for that we need a society that do not wish to "need"
cars, which have never been intended to be driven by drunks
or to be used as weapons, but firearms are intended to be
used as instruments to kill easily and at a distance (nothing
manly about that IMHO), you can used them to save somebody
(by killing someone else), or to scare baddies away (replicas
would be just as good for this last thing, and that's their
intended use too!), you can also use a gun to pound meat or
to mix the sugar in the coffee and I am not the person to
tell you that you don't have that right, but is that really
its intended use? a knife is another good example of this
kind of argument, it's main use is to cut things (with very
few exceptions) but of course it can be used to kill, so in
that case you should be able to make laws about the proper
use and types of knives allowed, but guns, again, are only
used to kill, to save a person you might have to kill another
if you use a gun, no guns, no gun killings, it's as simple
as that, and this simple concept provides safety to a heck
of a lot more people than you can on your own with your automatic
or whatever you like to pack.

But as I said, if you prefer to live in a country where massacres,
fear and paranoia are deemed fair prices to pay for the right
to own a weapon, I cannot argue with your logic, I just don't
want your personal values to escape your country and find
their way to the powers that be over here.

Amador
medical student yr 2
University of Queensland, Australia

From: James Cowan
Date: 17.08.99 00:05 GMT

<<I am shocked at the percentage of
GSW suicides>>

If you pull up the international numbers, the USA isn't doing
too bad. This is just suicides in general without any specific
mechanism; (According to the World health Organization and
as of 1994)

Please note that several of those countries have strict
firearm controls or outright bans.

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 18.08.99 01:48

Of course this does not tell the real story of this debate--look
at FIREARM deaths, or even at suicides caused by firearms,
and the entire relation turns around!

<< * itīs not a gun that kills, but people.
>>

Hmmmm--here we go again-- It's also not a bag of cocaine
that kills, is it? But I would wager you have no problem with
outlawing that inanimate substance--cocaine--even tho it takes
a person to make it do its dirty work?

And I would bet you have no problem with taking the matches,
or lighter, or knife, away from the 3 year old, even though
those are all inanimate objects, not able to do any harm unless
a person is on the other end? Why then do you take it away?
How does that attack the problem?

Or--the classic true story that is the basis of modern public
health--the cholera epidemic in the 18th century Philafdelphia
which was found by one man to be due to one water pump with
contaminated water being used for the water supply of an entire
neighborhood. After an exhaustive education campaign to try
to get the people to stop using the pump--which failed--they
just kept using it--guess what? He removed the pump handle!
An inanimate object! By itself was causing no harm! It took
people to make that pump do its harm! But guess what happened.
The epidemic just went away! No further deaths! No, it did
not stop crime, and it certainly blocked each person's individual
"freedom" to keep killing their families--but the basic problem
of deaths was immediately stopped! How ridiculous to think
that an inanimate object could by itself be a contributing
factor to a large number of deaths! If my assumption is correct--please
reconcile why your irrational application of this same philosophy
somehow DOES apply to the gun? I'd love to hear it!

<< Just to set the record straight it was
John Snow who plotted cholera cases in London (Not Philadelphia)
on a map in 1854 and discovered that those who took water
from the Southwark and Vauxall Water company's Broad Street
Pump had an incidence of 5/1000 Cholera cases in six weeks
compared to those receiving water from the Lambeth Water Co
amongst whom the incidence was 0.9/1000 in the same period.
(rr=5.55) He removed the handle from the pump and the epidemic
ceased. >>

Massey-- I stand corrected on the city in which this happened--thank
you--but the message remains quite clear

From: Charles Decrevecoeur
Date: 19.08.99 14:28 GMT

How about a broad generalization that's probably very close
to the mark? The sick obsession with owning masses of firearms
for "self-protection" (do you really need to be able to buy
more than one gun a month?) suggests more of a mental and/or
emotional problem is at the root of the matter. These individuals
all want to be Wild West gunfighters and are nothing more
than anachronisms so lacking in emotional security, self-esteem
and self-worth that this fantasy is all they can cling to.
Grow up, get some sort of life. Guns are a penis substitute,
and there must be quite a number of woefully inadequate owners
out there. This issue belongs in the political arena. I find
it better to use the delete key than to read ad nauseum these
pathetic attempts at justification. You can't argue with a
gun owner's obsession, so ignore it. Hopefully he will go
away and find somewhere else to shriek.

Charles Decrevecoeur
Firefighter/Paramedic

From: Mathias Kalkum
Date: 19.08.99 15:54

Eric, please re-read my message again. You will find the
words:

<< strongly believe the only way to
achieve this aim (that is: lower firearm violence rates) is
to ban guns strictly! It is the only way of prevention that
works.>>

I own no gun, I do not have the faintest interest in guns
and I donīt understand people who have (my wife would not
hesitate to say the same about me and my computer...). To
me a gun is a dangerous and - friendly spoken - very ambivalent
tool that has to be banned into strictly observed areas e.g.
as the police / armed forces / maybe even supervised gun clubs.

The reason why I declare this discussion as futile is that
obviously neither money (municipal buy_a_gun_from_the_citizen
programs), social/bureaucratical (education in how_to_handle_a_firearm,
minimum time between purchase and delivery etc.), nor efforts
of justice (up to death penalty) have had any influence on
firearm violence in the US. And the only way of preventing
people from beeing hurt / killed (simply keeping firearms
out of the citizans availability) keeps beeing avoided (as
the devil avoids holy-water - to paraphrase a nice bavarian
expression...).

I apologize, if I could have been mistaken - do we differ
that much in our point of view?

Mathias

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 19.08.99 18:39

<< I question your rationale on total suicide
rates being influenced by firearm availability when the rates
for countries with limited availability are so high. Japan
for example, France almost double what it is here. >>

Jim-- Here is where you fail to even try to read what is
being said--it is not "my rationale" Go back to the facts
and data which I am relating! Unlike you, I am not making
this stuff up or parroting what I've heard or read others
say--look at the data, then try to reconcile it with what
you just have to believe!

Read the Tale of Two Cities paper in 1988 NEJM, as well as
Kellerman's study on suicdes in homes with vs without guns!
In France and Japan (World Health Organization figures) the
percentage of all suicides caused by guns is only 25% or less
over the past decade--in the U.S, it is over 60%!

From: James Cowan
Date: 19.08.99 22:26

We have already been over this. Kellermans "studies" were
the reason the CDC's funding was cut. His refusal to permit
genuine peer review should be enough for any serious scholar
of the issue to question his work.

I have not read the "tale of two cities". I will do so.

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 19.08.99 23:48

Jim-- You apparently do not understand at all the concept
of peer review--not being a physician makes this understandable.
Maybe you forgot what I said--these studies and more were
published in the New England Journal of Medicine, probably
the most rigorous peer-reviewed journal in the entire medical
literature, with a rejection rate in excess of 90% of all
articles submitted to it. Please explain to us what you mean
by not submiting his work to "genuine peer review"--what or
whom do you consider a peer ? In the field of science, anyway,
any article published in a major journal has been thoroughly
vetted by peer review==I'm not sure what field you are reading
your information in

Following are a small sample of peer-reviewed studies published
on this topic which are the basis of all the assertions we
have made recently, for those interested in information rather
than cliches:

Kellermann AL et al: Suicide in the home in relation to
gun ownership New England Journal of Medicine 1992;367:467-472.

<<In France and Japan (World Health
Organization figures) the percentage of all suicides caused
by guns is only 25% or less over tha past decade--in the U.S,
it is over 60%!>>

I don't see what the significance of this statistic is,
especially without considering the per capita suicide rate.
And even that will be affected by many factors unrelated to
firearms. If someone wants to commit suicide they will try
using whatever "tools" are available. If there are no guns,
they'll use something else. Of all the arguments against firearms/handguns,
this is one of the weakest.

Jerry Eckert

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 20.08.99 11:35 GMT

Jerry-- This is simply not true--another example of the big
lie so effectively used by Hitler--say a falsehood with enough
authority enough times, and someone may actually believe it.
The key to supporting my assertion is you fail to provide
any data whatsoever to prove this statement--how exactly do
you know this? Please cite the study out of the volumes of
literature on suicides out of the sociology, medical and epidemiology
literature that shows this? If you can not, that pretty much
tells the story. It is evident you are speaking from a perspective
of ignorance (which is not meant to be derogatory--meaning
you are simply not aware of the volumes of studies which prove
you wrong)

Sloan et al: New England Journal of Medicine A Tale of two
cities 1988;319:1256 Shows a 10-fold higher rate of suicides
among 12-24 year olds in Seattle, where guns are widely prevalent,
vs Vancouver, a virtually identical city in terms of socioeconomic
strata, demographics (they even watch the same TV programs),
but in which guns are virtually inaccessible to the general
population

Brent DA et al: The presence and accessibility of firearms
in homes of adolescent suicides JAMA 1991;266:2989 Brent DA
et al: Firearms and adolescent suicide: a community case control
study Am J Dis Children 1993;147:1066-1071 These are just
for starters--virtually all studies on this issue show the
same thing, without exception--when guns are not available,
the overall suicide rate is significantly lower (the same
has been shown for homicides and unintentional firearm deaths),
which clearly demonstrates that, in fact, without the gun,
the suicide is NOT carried out, at least not nearly to the
same degree as when a gun is available,

If what you say is true, then in populations without guns
there would be no difference in the suicide rate. You are
once again mouthing a bunch of cliches heard elsewhere, without
taking the time to actually look at the data yourself--if
you want to seriously debate, then at least be serious about
it Show us your data! If we don't hear from you, that will
be answer enough!

From: James Cowan
Date: 20.08.99 19:12

Yes Eric, your condescending tone aside, I am not a doctor,
I am a mere therapist. Taking your amusing assertion that
only "doctors" can understand peer review, logically then
as a doctor I wouldn't understand guns or gun control would
I? You are yourself guilty of the very things you repeatedly
accuse others of. Aside from your condescending tone and overall
ignorance of the subject matter, you consistently insist upon
associating the facts with an individual while in reality
the truth knows no author.

Although this has already been covered repeatedly, I will
restate for the record, Kellermans "studies" were discredited
long ago simply because he refused to permit access to his
original data. This is not just my opinion, the problems with
his work have been the subject of congressional testimony.
If you were truly as well versed with this issue as you would
have the readers believe, you would know this.

The CDC's anti-gun propaganda was so flagrant and outrageous
that the Congress threatened to cut off its funding entirely.
This is the data you cite. The Kellerman pseudo-study was
refuted by several well-qualified sources, including sociology
professor H. Taylor Buckner; Henry E. Schaffner, Ph.D.; and
his sampling methods, methodology, analysis of data and conclusions
have all been censured as unscientific.

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 20.08.99 23:34 GMT

And the New England Journal of Medicine, American Journal
of Epidemiology, Journal of the american Medical Association.
etc etc--I guess their clear peer review process is just part
of this horrendous conspiracy concocted to make yur life miserable?
I didn't note how you reconciled this point--you conveniently
ignored it. So--you cavalierly flout those studies that have
been criticized by others (I note also how you fail to cite
who exactly gave all these criticisms and Congressional testimony)--who
those others are apparently do not matter Well I will pose
to you a question that you have already ignored once--

I'll try again-- Gary Kleck's studies have also had their
methodology criticized as "flawed"--by the National Reasearch
Council of the National Academy of Sciences --see Cease Fire
by Sugarmann and Rand(see Jim--I tell you who the criticizers
are and where you can find the data) So--why did you cite
them so authoritatively???? According to you. criticism--by
anyone apparently, it doesnl't matter--means that the study
is no good==or does this just apply selectively to the studies
you do not like? So why do you think Kleck's study that you
cited means something, while everything ever written by Kellerman
is a conspiracy against manhood (even tho amazingly you admit
you have not read some of them?)

Somebody--somewhere--"says" something and it is the TRUTH?
Really--you must be more independent minded than that Can
you not see why this inconsistency on your part leads to the
assumption that your bias is clouding your judgement? We'd
all love to hear your rationalization for these apparently
contradictory stances

From: Medix
Date: 21.08.99 01:33 GMT

I could not agree more, I also am getting a little sick of
this, have gun vs not have gun chatter.

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 21.08.99 03:12 GMT

As one of the perpetrators of this thread, let me voice
a comment?

Karim has said this before, but apparently many of you have
forgotten this. The value of this discussion list is that
it is free and open--that has been, and is, its intent Maybe
those who want this discussion stopped(censored?) are not
aware yet of a remarkable device on your keyboard--it's called
the "DELETE" button. And it is something you can hit on any
topic that comes up--with your mouse. I know it works because
I use it all the time for topics I am not interested in--and
an awful lot of those come up here all the time.

Yet I never even considered telling those who are interested
to stop-- for no other reason than because I do not like it!
Is that really what you want--and you would really unsubscribe
because you do not like a topic or the length of time some
choose to discuss it? Have you considered that perhaps free
and open discussion is just not for you? Maybe you are better
off unsubscribing? Please answer a burning question for me?
If you don't "like" this topic--why in the world do you read
the posts? How else would you be upset or "tired" of the topic
unless you read the posts?--because if you just deleted when
you saw the topic, it couldn't bother you at all! Could it
possibly be that there is another motive at work here?

I would estimate that the subject of prehospital volume resuscitation
(one of many examples) has had a running thread here for months.
It's interesting that in the years I've been on this list,
the subject of firearms is the very first and only to generate
this kind of sustained response----hmmmmm.....(for those interested--you
should read some of the private mail we in this discussion
have been getting--I've never seen that happen!) If no one
is interested in a topic, we all know it dies very quickly.
But if a group is, are we not free to pursue it (assuming
we are talking of trauma-related subjects) Or should we stop
when someone says stop, because THEY are tired of it? And
who is to determine the level of "tiredness" that demands
censoring? Let me guess--you, right?

Absolutely. I'd say it again - but I'd be repeating yourself!
I think we all know the value of the delete key - and it's
judicious use can save you a lot of headaches, from 'nauseating'
list threads to junk mail problems.

However, the subject of firearms is one of the most important
subjects relating to trauma care worldwide, and whether you
are bored with the discussion or not, I have rarely seen or
heard more coherent arguments given by both sides (with a
few lapses it has to be said) that highlight the ideals and
emotions of both sides. The problem may not relate to your
practice directly, but unless you never venture out of your
own safe, suburban back-yard then you need to open your mind
to the bigger picture. All of you joined the trauma-list for
exactly this reason (even if subconsciously)

The gun control debate has been raging for decades, and is
not going to be solved in a 6 message thread (despite the
IQ's of the trauma-list members) It is interesting and informative
to see the points thrashed out, as it is to be offered references
and statistics supporting both sides of the discussion. I
for one would prefer more list threads to be like this.

I am sure that practically everyone on the list has an opinion
on whether firearms should be freely available or not. May
I suggest that you join the discussion - if only to voice
your opinion and to allow us broader viewpoint? The problem
is not confined to the USA, and you should perhaps take the
time to think of the problems faced by South Africa which
has a glut of weapons moving back into the country after the
war with Angola etc and now gives it the highest murder rate
in the world. The same problems is faced by many developing
countries worldwide. It would be interesting and informative
to hear a global perspective.

I personally think that there is little debate. The point
'guns don't kill people, people do' is just so much crap.
It is very difficult to kill someone with your fists, not
in the least because the other guy as a 50/50 chance of him
getting you first. If you get hit by a bullet you are far
more likely to suffer serious injury than if you are stabbed.
How many of the open abdomens and multiple organ failures
on the ICU are stab wounds or blunt traumas? Not many compared
to the gunshots. Go to Jamaica & witness a gang fight in a)
Kingston and b) Ocho Rios. In kingston it's submachine guns
and the bodies and devastation are everywhere. Shoot outs
take place between large numbers of people and collateral
damage to innocent bystanders is high. Kingston Public Hospital
is behind barbed wire and if you work there you do not leave
after 5pm. Go North to Ocho Rios where guns are less prevalent
and machetes are the favoured weapon and fights tend to be
more one-on-one and there is almost no collateral injury to
bystanders. People get cut up but they don't die.

Go to your own back yard, and tell me how many children the
by-products of your society could have killed before being
over-powered had they been armed with a knife rather than
a gun bought in your local supermarket. Maybe you grew up
with guns and cannot see outside the box, just as many white
South-Africans grew up with Apartheid and accepted it because
it was all they ever knew, until shown the other side of the
coin. Many people in the world live in gun-free cultures,
and seem to manage OK without their 'right to bear arms'.
Here in the UK it is still a shock to see a policeman carrying
a gun (part of specially trained squads who have at least
5 years duty behind them). Yes the gangs are still able to
arm themselves, but it is much more difficult, and it is much
easier to track the flow of weapons. And it is much, much
harder for your common or garden nutter to get hold of one.
We look on the USA (in this respect) as a country that hasn't
grown up out of it's Wild West past - and we are pleased with
our decision to have let you win the war of independence!

<< We look on the USA (in this respect) as a country that
hasn't grown up out of it's Wild West past - and we are pleased
with our decision to have let you win the war of independence!
>>

Careful, Karim--
you're getting a bit too personal, aren't you? :)

ERF

From: Tim Coats
Date: 21.08.99 14:14 GMT

Hey, I saw a gunshot wound the other day. Great excitement
within the trauma system. Surgeons coming out of the woodwork
from all directions to have a look, discusison topic for several
days in the ER "I hear you had a shooting yesterday etc".
The case will probably be presented at a trauma meeting due
to its novelty value. Perhaps the Brits are just less prone
to violence (although many former colonies would probably
disagree!). I guess that gun control must be a topic for trauma
surgeons to discuss at length, as it seems to make such a
large difference to our working lives in different parts of
the world.

In 1985, in an editorial in the Journal of Trauma, Dr. Donald
Trunkey (then chief of the Trauma Service at UCSF, San Francisco
General Hospital) wrote:

"50% of trauma deaths occur within minutes of the accident
and the only way to reduce this carnage is through prevention.
I urge every surgeon to become involved in prevention issues
within their community."

If you find the aspect of trauma medicine which addresses
the majority of trauma deaths boring, perhaps you ought to
consider not only hitting the "UNSUBSCRIBE" key for this trauma
list - but also the "UNSUBSCRIBE" key to the practice of trauma
care as well. Bill

From: James Cowan
Date: 22.08.99 02:45

Robert, let me cite a prime example of a Kellerman study
along with it's conclusions and my rationale for questioning
it's validity. My specific objection to the study is that
the information does not support the conclusions drawn.

Kellermann and his colleagues concluded that a person who
had a gun in his or her home was 2.7 times more likely to
be a victim of homicide than someone who did not (1087). They
further "found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun
ownership...(1087)."

In my opinion, neither of these conclusions are justified
on the basis of their research. They conducted their research
by limiting their cases to people murdered in their own homes,
thus excluding any instances where intruders were killed by
the homeowner. Their information came from survivors who could
be considered the victims proxy.

In order to provide a control group they selected another
person from the neighborhood of the same sex, race, and age
group as the victim, and asked them the same questions they
had asked the victim's proxy. While matched on the demographic
variables, the control group was stunningly different on behavioral
measures. Compared to the control group the victim group was
more likely to: rent rather than own, live alone, drink alcoholic
beverages, have problems in the household because of drinking,
have trouble at work because of drinking, be hospitalized
because of drinking, use illicit drugs, have physical fights
in the home during drinking, have a household member hit or
hurt in a fight in the home, have a household member require
medical attention because of a fight in the home, have a household
member involved in a physical fight outside the home, have
any household member arrested, and be arrested themselves.

Thus the victim group and the control group had very different
lifestyles, with the victim group living a very high-risk
lifestyle. In fact, Kellermann found that having a gun in
the home ranked fifth out of six risk factors in the victims'
lives. Using illicit drugs lead to a 5.7 times risk of being
murdered, being a renter 4.4 times, having any household member
hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living alone 3.7 times,
guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household member being
arrested, 2.5 times.

The entire "gun in the home is risky" analysis depends on
one crucial figure, the percent of the control group (35.8%)
that have guns in their homes. If this figure is underreported,
the findings are false. There is good reason to assume this
figure is low.

First, many, many surveys report that around 48% of Americans
have guns in their homes. The victim group, as reported by
their proxies, had 45.4% gun owners. This figure is unlikely
to be false: the victim is dead, in 49.9% of the cases by
gunshot wound, the proxy cannot really lie about it.

If indeed the control group's firearms ownership was inline
with the national averages, Kellermans conclusions are unwarranted.

From: Bill Burman
Date: 23.08.99 05:02 GMT

<<Perhaps the Brits are just less prone
to violence Thank goodness they don't let them have guns at
soccer matches.>>

"Ironically, the increase in serious gunshot wounds has
put some trauma centers in our area out of business. Most
victims don't have insurance and don't qualify for Medicare
or MediCal . . . Three trauma centers in our immediate area
have closed in the past two years, leaving ours as the only
Level 1 facility there."

Dr. Haughton articulates a major concern of US trauma center
directors who understand that an unfavorable penetrating/blunt
trauma ratio can lead to degradation and even demise of trauma
centers which care not only for junkies, but also for firefighters
and law enforcement injured in the line of duty.

Such an attrition caused David Langness of the Hospital
Council of Southern California to state in a Time Magazine
article entitled "Trauma Care on the Critical List" , July
4, 1988:

"It doesn't matter if you drive a Pinto or a Rolls Royce.
You still can't get trauma care."

JAMA August 4, 1999, reported that gunshot wounds cost the
nation $2.3 billion a year in medical treatment, and almost
half that sum is paid for with taxpayers' dollars. While the
National Rifle Association has shrugged that off as being
a trivial 0.25% of what is spent annually on US medical care,
the mal-distribution of this loss to trauma centers is not
taken into account.

The US public may be facing a choice between the unrestricted
right to a gun versus unrestricted access to a trauma bed.

Bill Burman, MD
(at one time briefly ran the orthopaedic trauma service at
Kings County in Brooklyn, NY where up to 50% of the broken
bones were due to bullets)

From: Ian Civil
Date: 22.08.99 09:42 GMT

We had a GSW last week which engendered the same interest.
Our police shot a "bad guy" who was brandishing a knife. and
wouldn't put it down. Bullet (9mm from a Glock pistol) went
through RLL of lung, through diaphragm, into liver, and took
out right hepatic vein. To my surprise things worked well.
8 mins in ED and to OR. Got right thoracotomy and damage control
laparotomy. Next day had right hepatectomy and is making a
good recovery. The boys in blue remain camped outside his
room and when ready for discharge he will be "helping them
with their enquiries".

This is the SECOND GSW we have had this year! We have had
over 1000 blunt trauma patients however to date.

I have been following this thread with interest. I accept
the difficulties of removing handguns from a population that
has them but they are the problem. Despite our lack of bullet
wounds there are 250,000 registered shooters in NZ and a total
of 1.3 million firearms. Thats a ratio of one firearm for
every 3 people in the country. I think the issue must be that
if a gun cannot be put in your pocket and easily used in a
crime or a moment of passion then it is less likely to be
a problem.

Ian Civil
Director, Trauma Services
Auckland, New Zealand

From: Robert Eager
Date: 22.08.99 10:26 GMT

Whatever the view held on the rightness or wrongness of gun
ownership/control, isn't it a bit late to talk about a total
ban?

1. People have access to guns (fact).
2. If a ban was put in place it would require obedience to
the law and respect for the law for it to be effective (fact).

If a person was already breaking major laws (drug trafficking
for example) would they be particularly concerned with obeying
a law which took away their means of either protection for
themselves (from other drug runners or police) or their means
of enforcing control of their territory?

Doesn't it follow then that the benefit of gun control/bans
isn't a reduction in gun related injury/death within and from
the criminal community but rather a reduction in gun related
injury/death within the law abiding community? Further, wouldn't
a ban on guns also result in reducing the ability of the law
abiding community to protect themselves from the law breaking
community? Would a ban on guns then result in an increase
in home invasions, assaults, rapes etc? If it didn't (ie if
the law breaking community and the law abiding community were
totally separated) then would the reduction in accidental
deaths/suicides/deaths from domestic violence, be justification
for banning guns? However, unless there is an dramatic increase
in law enforcement and community protection by the law then
isn't it a citizens right to protect him/her self?

If it was a perfect world and there were no home invasions/assaults/rapes
etc then there is still the issue of the right of a law abiding
citizen to engage in a sport or recreation which s/he finds
enjoyable (target shooting/hunting etc) as well as a farmers
right to protect their property/crop from vermin. At what
point do you take those rights away from everyone for the
protection of those who are injured because a few don't have
the ability to handle a weapon without shooting themselves
or others? Wouldn't it be more logical to take the weapon
from those who cannot demonstrate that ability?

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

Rob (sitting firmly on the fence) ;o)
Sydney, Australia.

From: Amador
Date: 22.08.99 13:22

<<Whatever the view held on the rightness
or wrongness of gun >ownership/control, isn't it a bit late
to talk about a total ban? not really, do you have children
or grandchildren? do you care about their future? even if
the present looks a tad dark for us?
>1. People have access to guns (fact).
>2. If a ban was put in place it would require obedience to
the law and respect for the law for it to be effective (fact).>>

It may also require to stop manufacturing weapons other
than for military/police purposes and a few hunting guns if
really necessary, it may also mean the banning of gun sales
to the public, it may also mean that today's guns will be
tomorrow's antiques and that they will become more and more
scarce as time goes by...

<<Doesn't it follow then that the benefit
of gun control/bans isn't a reduction in gun related injury/death
within and from the criminal community but rather a reduction
in gun related injury/death within the law abiding community?
Further, wouldn't a ban on guns also result in reducing the
ability of the law abiding community to protect themselves
from the law breaking community? Would a ban on guns then
result in an increase in home invasions, assaults, rapes etc?
If it didn't (ie if the law breaking community and the law
abiding community were totally separated) then would the reduction
in accidental deaths/suicides/deaths from domestic violence,
be justification for banning guns? However, unless there is
an dramatic increase in law enforcement and community protection
by the law then isn't it a citizens right to protect him/her
self?>>

It might do that in the short term, but if the goal is to
create a better future, it may be possible to leave policing
to the police as a policy (lovely alliteration) and leave
defenceless law-abiding creatures who don't own a gun (such
as myself) with this only option , after all we can still
use baseball bats, knives and chairs and other hard household
objects against home invaders provided they also don't have
a gun, if they have a gun they are, methinks, less likely
to use it if they know you don't, and more likely to rob you,
I agree, but then again, how common are gun related deaths
in the event of home invasions or even armed robbery? even
counting the cases where the owner of the premises was the
gun owner, one finds that most gun deaths happen between and
around people with guns, law-abiding or not.

<<If it was a perfect world and there
were no home invasions/assaults/rapes etc then there is still
the issue of the right of a law abiding citizen to engage
in a sport or recreation which s/he finds enjoyable (target
shooting/hunting etc) as well as a farmers right to protect
their property/crop from vermin. At what point do you take
those rights away from everyone for the protection of those
who are injured because a few don't have the ability to handle
a weapon without shooting themselves or others? Wouldn't it
be more logical to take the weapon from those who cannot demonstrate
that ability? >>

At what point? at the point when you consider it intolerable
to balance the lives of people vs the right to shoot targets
or vermin, you can shoot targets by stone throwing (much more
sporting and physical) you can kill vermin with baits and
any number of ways, it is much harder to kill a person in
such a way, but with a gun, oh! it sooooooo easy!

It is a matter of what kind of society we want to live in,
if you consider that your right to shoot targets overrides
the right of a child to go safely to HS, or the right of the
same child not to be frisked and forced to pass through a
metal detector every time s/he goes to school, if you think
that the right of a farmer to shoot vermin overrides the right
of a child to have the education budget spent on textbooks
and learning facilities instead of armed guards, metal detectors,
video surveillance and what not!, then you may have a point!
this is what the NRA believes, all this and more may be an
acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms for them,
but it is not for me, in fact, it seems quite silly!

Amador

From: James Cowan
Date: 22.08.99 14:52

Perhaps....from the perspective of American society at large,
many of us wish they would get the electric chair..or at least
not be released on parole quite so quickly.

A significant percentage (the majority?) of the trauma incidents
that Bill Burman makes reference to involve felons.

This morning as I brew my morning coffee and began reading
my morning paper I am greeted with a front page article on
local problems with teenagers vandalizing our town square.
One teen has been arrested six times in the last few months
for everything from assault to having an illegal shotgun.

The night the reporter accompanied the police on rounds,
the same teen was arrested and was out of jail and back on
the square in 45 minutes. Eventually, he will shoot someone
and again a hue and cry will be heard "where did he get the
gun"...the real question should be, "why are we tolerating
these animals in our midst?".

<<At what point? at the point when
you consider it intolerable to balance the lives of people
vs the right to shoot targets or vermin, you can shoot targets
by stone throwing (much more sporting and physical) you can
kill vermin with baits and any number of ways, it is much
harder to kill a person in such a way, but with a gun, oh!
it sooooooo easy!>>

This is not true. Have you ever been in such a situation?
Do you know anyone who has? Shooting another person is a very
hard thing to do for most people. One of the problems we have
in teaching self-defense courses is that the vast majority
of people, particularly women, cannot do it. They simply can't
pull the trigger, often not even to save their own lives.

I have had a gun in my face, I know what it looks and feels
like. I have also heard that bizarre little clipping noise
bullets make when they pass through leaves in trees around
you when you don't even know you are being shot at until it
dawns on you a few seconds later when you hear the distant
report of a rifle shot.

I would wait until I had some personal experience in such
matters before I began saying what people will or will not
do. I also take exception to your continual misstatements
on what the "NRA believes". We NRA members have a saying,
"I am the NRA"....if you want to know what I believe just
ask me, but please stop speaking for me when you don't know
what you are talking about.

From: Amador
Date: 22.08.99 15:44

<<in such a way, but with a gun,
oh! it sooooooo easy!

This is not true. Have you ever been
in such a situation? No, I haven't Do you know anyone who
has?>>

yes sir! I can say I do! :-) in Australia we don't have
the same gun culture that you have in the US, but we do have
lots of refugees from unluckier places such as El Salvador,
East Timor, Afghanistan, etc.., I have friends from all of
these communities, some of them with GSW scars (one of them
has 4 of those in his chest and abdomen), I have a fair idea
of what it means, and I do hope I never have to speak from
my personal experience in this matter.

<<Shooting another person is a very
hard thing to do for most people. One of the problems we have
in teaching self-defense courses is that the vast majority
of people, particularly women, cannot do it. They simply can't
pull the trigger, often not even to save their own lives.>>

Please read my post well before you jump to conclusions,
I didn't say that shooting was easy, I said that killing a
person by using a gun is soooooo easy!, and I stand by that
remark, using a gun may be psychologically harder than using
your fists or a rock, but once you use it the results are
so much more devastating. But your argument also validates
my point, if you are not going to use it, why should you have
it?, wouldn't it be better if nobody had it?

<< have had a gun in my face, I know
what it looks and feels like. I have also heard that bizarre
little clipping noise bullets make when they pass through
leaves in trees around you when you don't even know you are
being shot at until it dawns on you a few seconds later when
you hear the distant report of a rifle shot.>>

I do feel sorry for your experience, but do you seriously
feel that it gives you moral authority over me, a person who
has been only robbed twice at knife point? I cannot see the
logic here if that's your intention, you do make the point
that guns are a hell of a scary thing, far too scary, IMHO,
to have around the house and in the hands of people other
than police or military..

<<I would wait until I had some personal
experience in such matters before I began saying what people
will or will not do. why? I didn't say what people will or
will not do, I said that it is easier, far easier to kill
with a gun than with a stone, how can you prove me wrong on
that? I also take exception to your continual misstatements
on what the "NRA believes". We NRA members have a saying,
"I am the NRA"....if you want to know what I believe just
ask me, but please stop speaking for me when you don't know
what you are talking about.>>

point taken, I will rephrase it by saying that the NRA and
its supporters seem quite happy/contented/resigned? to put
up with what I consider intolerably restrictive security conditions
for their children to study and to grow up in order for them
to be able to preserve the right to bear arms, is it better
put now?

Amador

From: Robert F. Smith
Date: 22.08.99 17:22 GMT

If it's so hard how come it happens between 100,000 to 250,000
times a year in our country?

Get real.

From: Frederic B Wilson
Date: 22.08.99 17:46

Dear Jim, Let me set a few things straight in this discussion.

<< I have had a gun in my face, I know
what it looks and feels like. I have also heard that bizarre
little clipping noise bullets make when they pass through
leaves in trees around you when you don't even know you are
being shot at until it dawns on you a few seconds later when
you hear the distant report of a rifle shot.>>

First of all, your description makes it apparent to me that
you have not, in fact , had the experience of being shot at
by someone with a rifle. Let me set you straight. Rifles are
a high velocity weapon with muzzle velocities typically greater
than 2-3 thousand feet per second. The round is, therefore,
supersonic. When it passes close by your ear it doesn't make
a delicate little clipping sound. It makes a sonic boom. Not
a big, crashing boom like a jet; it sounds almost exactly
like the SNAP of a bull whip. If you have your wits about
you, you can immediately begin rapid counting, "1,2,3,4,..."
until you hear the "Bang" from the rifle which is more of
a thump than a crack. The number you get to represents the
approximate hundreds of meters from your position to the shooter,
4 hundred meters in this instance. By noting the direction
you now have azimuth and range, both prerequisite to destroying
the shooter. Military and law enforcement people are trained
in these techniques. If you hear the report a few seconds
later the shooter is most likely out of range and taking random,
pot shots. Scary, but not particularly effective.

<<I would wait until I had some personal
experience in such matters before began saying what people
will or will not do. I also take exception to our continual
misstatements on what the "NRA believes". We NRA embers have
a saying, "I am the NRA"....if you want to know what I elieve
just ask me, but please stop speaking for me when you don't
know what you are talking about.>>

I am most disturbed about the name calling you resort to
in the above paragraph, probably a sign of frustration at
the person who had the temerity to disagree with you. To borrow
from one of your NRA's own slogans, "Guns don't kill people,
people kill people with guns." Take away the guns (Handguns
and assault weapons, not hunting weapons) and people will
have less readily available means of slaughtering each other.

Another of your jingoistic little sayings is that "if guns
are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Pardner, outlaws
will have guns regardless, and, trust me on this, they generally
don't have any compunction about pulling the trigger. In addition,
the vast majority of the slaying occurring today takes place
in our inner cities by young, immature teens and adults who
have never bothered to consider the consequences of their
actions like the lady in your example who couldn't pull the
trigger even to defend herself. These kids are just out there
to "bust a cap on yo' ass."

Taking the weapons out of their hands by tightly controlling
the sale, distribution, and registration of handguns and assault
weapons makes eminent sense to most who have rationally thought
this through. It makes at least as much sense as the laws
we have requiring us to buckle our seat belts, wear helmets,
and the myriad of other safety regulations we have put in
place to protect society as a whole.

But lets be fair. Let's keep this discussion going, but
let's all agree to do a little research and support our assertions
with the literature. Let the paper wars begin. Much safer
than the real, shooting kind.

<<places such as El Salvador, East
Timor, Afghanistan, etc.., I have friends from all of these
communities, some of them with GSW scars (one of them has
4 of those in his chest and abdomen), I have a fair idea of
what it means, and I do hope I never have to speak from my
personal experience in this matter.>>

Having "friends" from countries who have experienced things
is not the equivalent of personal experience. Odds are your
friends would resent very much your suggestion that you have
even a "fair" idea of what they went through. You may know
a rape victim, but you do not know what she went through.
You don't even have a "fair idea".

<<Please read my post well before you
jump to conclusions, I didn't say that shooting was easy,
I said that killing a person by using a gun is soooooo easy!,>>

I see, so you are going to beat them to death with it?

<<point taken, I will rephrase it by
saying that the NRA and its supporters seem quite happy/contented/resigned?
to put up with what I consider intolerably restrictive security
conditions for their children to study and to grow up in order
for them to be able to preserve the right to bear arms, is
it better put now?>>

Is the stench of a dead fish any better if you claim it's
a rose?

The NRA has done more to protect our constitution, support
law enforcement and educate children in gun safety than any
other organization in the history of the world. Not just in
America, but anywhere. There is a reason that millions and
millions of Americans pay to become members.

The NRA is not responsible for the untold thousands of convicted
violent felons running loose in our society.

Who IS responsible are the handwringing liberals who tout
your very position and who turned them loose to begin with.
It's also no coincidence that the majority of police officers
in the US support gun rights and a great many are NRA members
themselves.

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 22.08.99 21:39

Jim-- Here you go again--not true! Virtually every survey
done of individual police officers have shown the same as
another professional group that sees this problem every day
right up there on the front line--physicians--and both are
overwhelmingly in favor of a greater and more rational degree
of control of access to firearms.(Remember what you said about
actually experiencing the problem?) You may be referring to
the only survey of any group of police--the Nat'L Assoc of
Chjefs of Police--who indicated a plurality in defiance of
gun control, and that in one year in 1991. A survey of a particular
isolated group does not have nearly the weight of a wide and
open survey of individuals. Please--once again--tell us your
source on this sweeping assertion you pass off as fact?

Interesting to see you continue your adolescent name-calling--is
that really appropriate?

As far as constitutional rights--you keep saying that as
if the 2nd amendment gurantees the unfettered use, sale, manufacture
or ownership of any "arm" without restricition or responsibility
(in another blatant rehearsed diatribe you obviously picked
up elsewhere for its high sounding theme)--But of course--an
interesting point you never have refuted because you cannot--the
2nd amendment says no such thing. The courts in this country
have numerous times upheld gun control laws as completely
constitutional under the 2nd amendment, and that such laws
infringe on no one's constitutional rights .

More to the point--not once--in the entire history of our
country--not once--has any court from the lowliest local court
to the Supreme Court ever struck down a law which limits access,
sale, ownership, manufacture or use of firearms under the
2nd amendment. And such challenges date back to the 1840's,
and as recently as the 1990's. What, you say, does it matter
what a bunch of sheltered old feeble judges say? The answer
lies in our own Constitution, which you so rigidly pay homage
to--and that is "Everything"--because according to the Constitution,
only the Courts can interpret what the Constitution says or
does not say--not you, not me, not "legal scholars" or movie
stars. You may disagree, but your mere opinion has no legal
standing in the U.S. So please elaborate a bit on the real
story when you start on the patriotic "right" to kill anything
in sight without accountability.

There is no such right of unfettered gun ownership or use.
The best indication of the truth of this is the clear fact
that no individual or organization who upholds "gun rights"
has challenged any gun control measure that they so decry
as "unconstitutional" in the courts. Ask yourself--why in
the world would they not do this? Such an easy solution--seek
redress from the Constitution itself as it provides! But--how
interesting that such is never done! Why not, Jim? I,m sure
your handy-dandy website of the NRA has another stock but
blatantly distorting answer for that one--we'd all love to
hear it for our amusement

For a bit of education on this point see:

Vernick, Teret SP: Firearms and Health--The Right To Be Armed
with Accurate Information About the Second Amendment Am J
Public Health 1993;83:1773

Sugarmann, Rand: Cease Fire, excerpted in Rolling Stone Magazine,
March 10, 1994--an excellent overview of this and many other
informative facts and figures regarding the firearm issue.

<<The NRA has done more to protect
our constitution, support law enforcement....than any other
organization in the history of the world. Not just in America,
but anywhere.>>

Wow, I wasn't aware of that. Could you please provide specific
details? The only evidence that I'm aware of ( and whihch
I cited specific cases) are of the NRA's constent misinterpretation
and attempted subversion of the constitution. Fortuneately
no court has ever supported the position of your organization.
More hand wringing liberal conspiracy? Why doesn't the NRA
bring a case before the Supreme Court that asserts the right
of citizens to unfettered possesion of firearms?

From: Amador
Date: 23.08.99 00:29 GMT

<<Is the stench of a dead fish any
better if you claim it's a rose?>>

Was that my claim?, am I lying?, what is the NRA position
on education and high school security then?, what is the NRA's
position on how to spend the education budget then? what is
the NRA's position on the type of restrictions students have
to go through now?, we don't have those overhere, I would
be horrified if my children had to attend to such a HS and
probably would get out of the country as fast as possible

<<The NRA is not responsible for the untold thousands
of convicted violent felons running loose in our society.
Who IS responsible are the handwringing liberals who tout
your very position and who turned them loose to begin with.>>

I have not touted any position on your penal system, but
methinks that I could be justified in accusing the NRA and
its supporters for creating and maintaining a climate in which
it is extremely easy for felons to get access to a firearm,
I can also join you in bemoaning a lax justice system which
allows violent felons running loose. You see, my point is
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST, and that means both less firearms AND
less criminals on the street, ideally NO firearms and NO criminals
on the street.

Don't jump to conclusions that because someone thinks guns
and gun culture are stupid, it also means that the same person
is going around freeing as many felons as possible, that only
provides more excuses for the existence of the NRA :-)

I'm withdrawing from making any more personal comments on
the list, if you want to refute my arguments please do so
on the list, but if you want to continue saying "what do you
know? you never had a gun in your face!, you handwringing
liberal!" or comments to that effect without addressing the
question, please do so at my private email thanks

From: James Cowan
Date: 23.08.99 18:39 GMT

<<First of all, your description makes
it apparent to me that you have not, in fact , had the experience
of being shot at by someone with a rifle. >>

Spoken as a true urbanite. I just love it when the uninitiated
begin explaining ballistics and firearms. This is an example
of why the NRA has to take such a hard nosed stance on gun
control. People with a little knowledge and a "lot" of ego
formulating opinions on topics they have a marginal understanding
of.

Tell you what Frederic, you stand out on a nice dense thicket
of woods somewhere and have someone kick a few rounds loose
over your head from a distance. As the bullet passes through
the leaves it sounds almost like a very rapid ticking sound
that you can't really identify the source of. Then you hear
the report...if you are lucky.

As for the rest of your "how to" quotations....obviously
another arm chair quarterback who once had some training but
never actually had to apply it. What were they again....REMFs?

From: Colleen Walsh
Date: 23.08.99 23:45 GMT

Fred: Being an ortho/trauma nurse (formerly of Lake Charles
and Mobile), I agree that too many handguns, assault rifles
etc are in the wrong hands. It is hard to see an 8 year old
dying in our ER as a result of a drive-by.

I wish I had all the answers, but only personal observations.
I've lived and worked in "knife and gun club" settings, and
it never gets easier. I agree with the theme that controlling
handguns will not stop those who are on the shady side of
the law from continuing to kill with handguns.

I also cannot ignore the impressive statistics from countries
that have restrictive guns laws. There are few issues in this
country that polarize the masses as much as the gun control
issue, (as well as members of this group) and I think this
is the forum to discuss and exchange ideas, not necessarily
ideologies.

From: James Cowan
Date: 24.08.99 01:18

<<First of all, your description makes
it apparent to me that you have not, in fact , had the experience
of being shot at by someone with a rifle. Let me set you straight.
Rifles are a high velocity weapon with muzzle velocities typically
greater than 2-3 thousand feet per second. The round is, therefore,
supersonic.>>

Frederick, you are debating guns and ballistics with someone
who has done this his entire life...plus, your facts are flat
out wrong and if you had bothered to even check the basics
you would have discovered your error prior to wasting our
time with drivel that now I have to waste time correcting.

You are right in that supersonic rounds create shock waves
that some people call sonic booms, but let me ask you....how
long do you think a supersonic round stays supersonic?

Say a common .308 at around 2800 fts of muzzle velocity?
For about 1.5 seconds Fred, thats how long. Where is that
bullet going to be when it drops subsonic? About 400-500 yards
away. And what does the poor sap standing in some trees about
1200 yards away experience when that subsonic round passes
by?

Exactly what I damned well said.

You just spent god knows how many words blathering on quite
incorrectly about a phenomenon many shooters have experienced
personally and in the case of the target masters in long range
shooting competition, experienced every few minutes every
day of the match. The round is only supersonic for the first
fraction of it's journey, typically going subsonic at somewhere
around 400-500 yards. Thats about 1.5 to 2 seconds into it's
journey.

The round itself however continues on for some time given
the proper elevation....I believe some studies have been done
with Doppler radar demonstrating a standard issue .308 NATO
round (7.62 if you prefer) fired at 40 degrees of elevation
will remain in the air for 30 seconds and travel 2.5 kilometers.
I have graphs of this study and will e-mail attach them to
anyone who is interested.

That means the round is subsonic for at least 25 seconds
or more and in passing anyone or anything leaves nothing but
the distant report of the rifle. Unless of course you are
standing in foliage or something else and can hear the round
pass through the things around you.

You are also in error on your sonic boom data...if you were
able to run alongside a sonic wave in progress you would hear
nothing. In fact, the so-called sonic boom that you hear is
not so much that the bullet has broken the "sound-barrier"
but rather the buildup of the radiant sound energy in one
spot (that spot being the intersection of the mach cone with
the observer, i.e., you). And these sort of envelopes are
features of all waves in their respective mediums (e.g, a
fast moving boat on water also has this "cone", in this case
the bow wave).

I have shadowgraphs of bullets in flight that clearly show
the waves. They allowing you to visualize the pressure differences
of the flowfield. One may distinguish at least three different
shock waves. The first and most intensive one emerges from
the bullet's nose and is called the Mach cone. A second shock
wave originates from the location of the cannelure, and the
third shock wave forms behind the bullet's base. Additionally
one can also see a highly turbulent flow behind the base,
which is called the wake.

Now I'll make you a deal Fred, I won't make a fool out myself
by blathering on about ortho issues, a topic I know nothing
about, and you do me the same favor when it comes to weapons
and ballistics.

From: James Cowan
Date: 24.08.99 01:39 GMT

<<Wow, I wasn't aware of that. Could
you please provide specific details? The only evidence that
I'm aware of ( and whihch I cited specific cases) are of the
NRA's constent misinterpretation and attempted subversion
of the constitution. >>

Subversion? If the NRA subverts the constitution, then Christians
must subvert the Bible according to your definition. It never
ceases to amaze me how you can formulate these opinions on
things you don't know anything about. Yes, the NRA is who
provides firearms instructor certification. Ask your local
police department who educated their range masters? It's either
the NRA or someone the NRA trained.

The Eddie Eagle program is focused on children and involves
visits by a walking talking Eddie Eagle cartoon character
to public schools and organizations to teach gun safety. It's
an award winning safety program for children and carries the
message "if you see a gun, don't touch it, get away, tell
an adult".

There is even legislation before some state governments to
make the Eddie Eagle program mandatory in elementary schools.
State rifle and pistol associations work with the NRA to make
the Eddie Eagle gun safety program available on video tape
in video stores at no charge.

The goal last year was to present the safety program to 1
million children and parents. They exceeded that goal. But
I guess you didn't know any of that, did you? Yet you still
consider yourself well informed on gun issues and the NRA...

Robert, with all due respect, you and several others here
are victims of your own preconceived ideas on guns and gun
control that seem to have little to do with the truth...and
you seem very comfortable with that unfortunate situation.

From: James Cowan
Date: 24.08.99 02:29 GMT

<<Here you go again--not true! Virtually
every survey done of individual police officers have shown
the same as another professional group that sees this problem
every day right up there on the front line--physicians--and
both are overwhelmingly in favor of a greater and more rational
degree of control of access to firearms. >>

Please cite this "survey". It has been my experience that
the political police officers, like Chiefs of Police, etc,
support gun control, while beat officers do not. However,
I will await your references.

<<As far as constitutional rights--you
keep saying that as if the 2nd amendment gurantees the unfettered
use, sale, manufacture or ownership of any "arm" without restricition
or responsibility (in another blatant rehearsed diatribe you
obviously picked up elsewhere for its high sounding theme)>>

Eric, you are just again substituting vehemence for substance.
(and truth) It's my opinion that the 2nd amendment guarantees
individual ownership and carrying of firearms. I believe the
Supreme Court has ruled in it's 2nd amendment cases that specific
restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional as long as
they don't impede the right overall. For example, telling
someone they can't carry a shotgun with a barrel less than
18 inches doesn't infringe upon their rights because they
can still legally carry one with a 19 inch barrel.

The "the people" referred to in the 2nd amendment are the
same "the people" referred to in amendments I, II, IV, IX,
X, XVII, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI. Now thats about as clear as
I can make it.

From: Frederick B. Wilson
Date: 24.08.99 03:26 GMT

I tell you what Jimbo. I'll place my 15 months as a platoon
leader and then company commander in the 173rd Airborne Brigade
(Separate) in Vietnam in 1969-70, with two Bronze Stars, and
Combat Infantry Badge; my training as an Airborne Ranger;
and my subsequent seventeen years in the U.S. Army before
retirement as a Lieutenant Colonel up against anything you
have to offer.

If that makes me "unitiated...with a little knowledge and
a "lot" of ego formulating opinions on topics they have a
marginal understanding of" then so be it. No Jim, YOU try
standing out on a nice dense thicket. I've been there, done
that, and have the "t-shirt" as the expression goes. What
I described in my response were the exact techniques we used,
and the science they are based on, when I was in combat. So
how do things look now, from your REMF perspective that is?

BTW, I own exactly one gun, a Remington shotgun I use for
duckhunting. Out of season I keep it locked up in a storage
locker because I don't feel any need to sleep surrounded by
weapons. I tried that once in Southeast Asia. It got old real
fast.

Still interested in your response, supported by the literature,
to the "urbanite questions I posed. Roll On gun control. May
sanity prevail.

You have so eloquently reinforced my assertions that little
more need be said. Let me say, however, as a combat veteran,
that there is a marked difference between experiencing rifle
shots going by your head in actual combat situations (typically
less than 200 meters, especially in the dense thicket you
referred to) and experiencing spent rounds several hundred
meters later (not that they can't or don't kill or wound).
Even Basic Trainees are taken down range in carefully controlled
firing execises to have rifle rounds fired over their heads
in order to learn what it sounds like and learn how to locate
the direction and distance from which the round originated.

But let's get back to the issue at hand. Why do we not, as
a supposedly civilized society, have in place more adequate
means of denying 16-year-old children access to assault rifles.
I, and many others, assert that such restrictions don't represent
a denial of the Constitutional Right to bear arms. They simply
seek to reconcile the fact that "my right to freely swing
my arms ends where your nose begins" or, in this case, paraphrased
to "your right to freely bear arms ends where my flesh begins."

There is a word for your technological drivel. It is called
"Sophistry." Look it up.

The last time I checked I was not able to outrun a rifle
bullet. That must be why I've heard so many distinctive CRACKS
as they went by me. Another sound you might add to your repertoire
is the distnctive THWAP the bullet makes when it hits the
person next to you. Or how about the grunts, gasps, groans,
and shrieks they make after being hit. Most haunting, however,
are the quizical faces and imploring looks and grimaces they
make while you try to keep them from dying.

Shame on you for placing some supposed right to behave irresponsibly
with a weapon ahead of that.

From: Eric Frykberg
Date: 24.08.99 12:44

<< It's my opinion that the 2nd amendment
guarantees individual ownership and carrying of firearms.
I believe the Supreme Court has ruled in it's 2nd amendment
cases that specific restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional
as long as they don't impede the right overall. For example,
telling someone they can't carry a shotgun with a barrel less
than 18 inches doesn't infringe upon their rights because
they can still legally carry one with a 19 inch barrel. The
"the people" referred to in the 2nd amendment are the same
"the people" referred to in amendments I, II, IV, IX, X, XVII,
XIX, XXIV, and XXVI. Now thats about as clear as I can make
it. >>

Once again, Jim--this is the classic understanding but not
true--and again--your "opinion" has no legal standing. You
need to read these opinions--they are numerous and very clear--and
without exception make it clear that first of all, the 2nd
amendment does not apply to individuals, but the collective
(referring to the militia segment--and militia according to
the court does not refer to you and I, as you like to think)--and
does not apply to states but only to the federal Congress--which
is why no state law restricting access to guns has ever, or
will ever, be struck down as unconstitutional. And even at
the federal level--your parroting of the NRA position on the
meaning of the "people" also is not true--read the opinions
of no less than the Chief Justice Warren Burger and Lewis
Powell in US b Lewis in 1980 or in the Morton Grove, Ill case
which specifically refute this self-serving perspective of
what is meant by "people" in other rulings--a perspective
advanced only by the NTA, which is not exactly a bastion of
legal training in constitutional law.

Please--once again--I left the references on this issue
in my last post--read them--they provide a complete overview
of the history of the courts' rulings on the 2nd amendment,
the fact that not a single law restricting access of firearms
in any way shape or form has ever been struck down on 2nd
amendment grounds, and how these ruling are grossly distorted
by the gun lobby. You also, as usual failed to once again
answer the question as to the inconsistency in why no law
restricting access to firearms, which are lambasted constantly
as unconstitutional by gun advocates, is ever challenged in
the courts--if indeed they are unconstitutional, your point
will be proven! The fact that the NRA does not do this--despite
clearly having the money to do it--simply shows they know
what the outcome will be, giving the lie to your stance--

Please--tell us all why this is? And read up first on the
court decisions you pontificate upon without ever having read
them?

<< Still interested in your response, supported
by the literature, to the "urbanite questions I posed. Roll
On gun control. May sanity prevail. >>

Fred-- You see--Jim has a particular aversion to real debate--he
will not answer questions with any degree of honesty in which
the answers go against his beliefs--he just ignores them hoping
they wiloll go away, or until he can consult his website to
find the stock answers provided there--apparently can not
think for himself.

From: James Cowan
Date: 24.08.99 15:07 GMT

You have a lot of company Fred...you must be the 10,000th
"combat veteran" I have run into who is a self-professed firearms
expert. Every gun show has a few dozen of them. They always
were deep in the bush, were decorated, usually wounded and
you can always recognize them.

The older ones usually recite the "tumbling bullet" theory.
The younger ones talk about cancer. Now you were saying something
about sonic booms?

<<Why do we not, as a supposedly civilized
society, have in place more adequate means of denying 16-year-old
children access to assault rifles. >>

1. 16 year old children cannot legally buy guns of any kind.
2. Assault rifles do not constitute a statistically significant
problem. This is a myth that has become generally accepted
as truth.
3. We have in place so many forms of denial now that those
of us who participate in the shooting sports wade through
an ocean of paperwork, permits, applications and checks. Lets
enforce the ones we have before we decide they are not enough.

<<I, and many others, assert that such
restrictions don't represent a denial of the Constitutional
Right to bear arms.>>

I agree to a point. I have no problem with existing permits,
etc. I do have a problem with federal efforts to ban import
or manufacture of items that are not a problem based strictly
upon their appearance. With your experience, you know the
firepower of an AR-15 is nothing next to the Mini-14 in a
.308, yet one is banned because it's black and looks ominous
and the more powerful weapon is not because it has a wooden
stock. You have to know how absurd that is.

<<The last time I checked I was not able to outrun
a rifle bullet. That must be why I've heard so many distinctive
CRACKS as they went by me.>>

I have already explained why you heard what you heard. Is
the issue served by your bringing up painful memories that
many of us here would prefer to leave in the past? I suggest
we stick to the facts and the science and leave the emotion
out of it.

From: Bill Burman
Date: 24.08.99 17:48 GMT

<<You have a lot of company Fred...you
must be the 10,000th "combat veteran" I have run into who
is a self-professed firearms expert. Every gun show has a
few dozen of them. They always were deep in the bush, were
decorated, usually wounded and you can always recognize them.>>

This is a really disgraceful and disrespectful reference
to those who have put their lives on the line to presumably
protect the rights of all US citizens. I am sure this NRA
shameless arrogance is the reason why former President George
Bush and others have burned their NRA cards.

Dr. Eric Sterling, Director of the Oakland CA Highland Almeda
County Trauma Service circa 1989 said that GSW patients represent
2% of the hospital population and consume 40% of the blood
transfused.

If this is true, the National Rifle Association's insistence
on unrestricted access to the implements of serious bloodletting
- in this era of an unprecedented blood borne public health
crisis - equates them with the most irresponsible elements
of society - amongst pimps, prostitutes, promiscuous unprotected
homosexuals and dirty-needle drug addicts - in terms of the
proliferation of Hepatitis C, B and HIV. At the close of this
chapter of medical history, the NRA may well emerge as the
"Typhoid Mary" of the AIDS epidemic.

From: Pret Bjorn
Date: 24.08.99 20:07 GMT

Jim, have you no idea what damage this juvenile ranting does
to your marginal credibility?

Put your tongue back in your mouth, pick up your email software
manual, and figure out how to send messages like this off-list.

Pret Bjorn, RN
Liberal Conspiracist
Bangor, ME

From: Frederick B. Wilson
Date: 25.08.99 00:15

Dear Jim, I was profoundly saddened by your response.

Despite all of the swirling controversy that has existed
about Vietnam I had always maintained that those with whom
I served, and I, did so with honor and integrity. I vo;unteered
to serve in the Army, volunteered for Airborne training, Ranger
school, Infantry OCS, and virtually everything else I did
while in the Army. It really never occured to me that someday
I would face the realization that part of what we served to
protect was an institution that makes a mockery of true liberty
(the NRA) by crafting its own razor-thin interpretation of
our most fundamental document. An interpretation not supported
by the courts of the land from the evidence offered in this
discussion thread.

I finished my military career in the Army Medical Corps as
an Orthopaedic Surgeon before going into private practice.In
that capacity I both studied the ballistics of and injury
patterns of a broad variety of weapons. It is a shame that
everyone who disagrees with you is presumed to be an idiot.
It makes meaningful dialogue nearly impossible. I would highly
commend tou to take the opportunity to do a literature search
of the National Library of Medicine through PubMed so that
you might educate yourself to the consequences that we in
medicine see over and over in this the most violent industrialized
society on the face of the earth.

How bewildering it must seem to the cultured and educated
people of other countries, to read of random drive-by shootings,
killing sprees by teenagers in our own schools, death by gunshot
wounds as a leading cause of death among young black males,
and the other evils inexticably connected to the ready availability
of firearms in this country. How profoundly sad I feel at
this time that a person such as yourself would disparage those
years of service and all that I thought they had stood for.
Let me humbly suggest that you get down on your knees tonight
and pray to your God for forgiveness for having taken all
that sacrifice, and blood, and tears expended by all those
"combat veterans" so lightly.

Jim Cowan, you have proven to me that you truly have no
shame.

Wrapping
it up...

From: Karim Brohi (trauma-list
moderatorr)

Before this all degrades (more) into personal feuds/insults
I am going to try to draw this thread to a close. In doing
so I am going to invite the main participants of the discussion
(you know who you are) to write a closing statement on the
subject, the discussion and your suggestions for change (and
anything else).

This is not an excuse to spark the whole thing off again
- so make them concise but full CLOSING arguments.

The whole discussion, with refernces, stats & links will
be archived on the web site so you can relive it again & again
(digitally remastered so to speak)

Karim

From: James S. Cowan

The firearms issue needs to be viewed on the basis of factual
evidence. What is sadly missing is a sense of perspective.
We are a nation of 273 million people who own around 200 million
firearms. Those firearms were involved in about 400,000 crimes
last year total. (Department of Justice Stats)

That means that even if a different gun were used in every
crime and we considered even the legal uses as illegal. (cops
shoots armed felon, we count both guns as being involved in
a crime) That means that 99.8% of the guns in the USA are
NOT involved in a crime. And thats a conservative estimate.

The people are far more revealing. one in 50 Americans cannot
vote because of a felony conviction, 1 in 13 African-Americans
males cannot vote because of a felony conviction. We are a
crime ridden, violent society and it's self-evident that our
problems go far deeper that which weapon our criminals use
that day or which one the honest citizens use to defend themselves.

I realize these things make great headlines and sell papers,
but they are not a main component of life for most Americans.

So first let's look at accidental deaths.

The National Safety Council publishes annually the number
of accidental deaths in the US...and firearms are down around
7th or 8th. Your changes of being killed by poison, drowning,
falls, all are far more than being killed accidentally by
a firearm. You have twice the chance of suffocating.

So lets move on to intentional deaths.

Please note the word "intentional". That means that someone
intended the victim to die, or the victim intended to commit
suicide. My primary problem with the anti-gun crowd is their
refusal to face the fact that these are violent people who
act violently. Passing some sort of law telling them they
can or can't do anything is amusing but not much else and
"hiding all the sharp instruments" from them is nothing but
a form of denial.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a violent society
with a lousy value structure but the criminals are still a
tiny minority. The real problem is that we let that tiny minority
run the country. Our judicial system is nothing but a revolving
door. From 1960-1980, the number of prison inmates per 1,000
violent crimes dropped from 738 to 227, and the crime rate
tripled. Each year more than 265,000 felons convicted in state
courts are not sent to prison. Only 29% of convicts are in
prison: 71% are on parole or probation, free on the streets.
Something we can thank our liberals for.

Thanks to those same liberals, Imprisoned criminals now serve
only one third of their sentences, on average: for murder,
7.7 years; rape, 4.6 years; robbery 3.3 years; and aggravated
assault, 1.9 years.

Every day in America there are 14 murders, 48 rapes and 578
robberies by convicted criminals on parole or early release
from prison. The average career criminal commits more than
180 crimes a year (Rand Corp.), contributing significantly
to the nearly 14 million violent and property crimes last
year. (FBI)

Yes, we have a violent society and a crime problem and almost
all of it can be traced back to a fraction of our population
who commit the vast majority of our crime.

Is it better in Japan? Depends on what you value. Different
value structure, an efficient criminal justice system, fewer
protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for
criminal suspects than exist in the United States.

Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice
a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect
confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%
. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police
routinely "...engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even
in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and
their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims,
courts have still accepted their confessions." Neither the
powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense
counsel would be acceptable to most Americans.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained
in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed
along to their descendants in the United States where the
murder rate for Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms)
is similar to that in Japan itself.

Other gun control myths:

"We have a problem with guns and the deaths of children"

Fact; Those "children" are often anyone less than 21. An
example is an individual named Artemio Corredar. Artemio used
to control crack spots in the Bronx making $5,000 to $10,000.-
a day. He tells how his partner got shot and died, and how
he went for revenge and killed some of his opposition. All
these criminals are counted as innocent victims of gun violence.
It gets better, Artemio Corredar was arrested for the murder,
but later acquitted. A month after being released and returning
to drug dealing he was shot and paralyzed during a drug deal.
Now he is part of an anti-gun group called the "Gunrunners".
He travels to school auditoriums lecturing people on the dangers
of guns. How ironic that someone who used to rely on a gun
to carry out his criminal enterprise now blames it for his
misfortune.

Second myth: "gun control works in other countries"

Countries with guns everywhere have low homicide rates, like
Switzerland, Israel, and Norway. Guns actually have little
if anything to do with it. High crime countries or areas are
high crime in everything, gun and nongun crime. The inverse
is also true, low crime countries and areas are so regardless
of how many firearms are present.

Third myth: "We have a problem with violent crime"

Actually, we have a problem with violent criminals. A violent
crime doesn't occur without one, but they do occur without
guns...all the time. The vast majority of homicides are committed
by people with criminal records, and curiously enough, the
vast majority of homicide victims also have criminal records.

Fourth myth: "Gun control reduces crime"

This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today
by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness
of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the
dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative
effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on
private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher.
If gun laws worked, it would be evident in areas in which
they are harsh and very restrictive. When these examples are
cited, there is always an excuse, but what there isn't, is
an example of it working. Instead, the handwringers uniformly
blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for
the failures of the laws they advocated.

Fifth myth: "The police support gun control"

A series of polls were conducted by the National Association
of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country,
representing over 15,000 departments. In 1991 the poll discovered
for the third year in a row that law enforcement officers
overwhelmingly agree that "gun control" measures have no effect
on crime. A clear majority of 93% of the respondents said
that banning firearms would not reduce a criminal's ability
to get firearms, while 89% said that the banning of semi-automatic
firearms would not reduce criminal access to such firearms.
Ninety-two percent felt that criminals obtain their firearms
from illegal sources; 90% agreed that the banning of private
ownership of firearms would not result in fewer crimes. Seventy-three
percent felt that a national waiting period would have no
effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90%
felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective
against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to
open them up to liability lawsuits.

In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno,
and others announced support for registration and licensing,
police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes,
President of the Fraternal Order of Police said "... I don't
want to get into a situation where we have gun registration."
Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly.
Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said,
"On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say
we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns." Dennis
Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of
Police reported, "I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs
and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that
we're going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding
people who don't want to get a license for their gun."

Myth number six: "the only purpose of a handgun is to kill
people"

There are an estimated 75-80 million privately owned handguns
in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting,
protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate
and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in
an estimated 13,000 homicides in 1994--less than 0.02% (two
hundredths of 1% ) of the handguns in America. Many of these
reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable
and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the
myth about the "only purpose" of handguns absurd, for more
than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.

By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun
is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun
owners in America own handguns for protection and security.
A handgun's function is one of insurance as well as defense.
A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge
that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute
will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more
than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

The gun control issue is not as complex as it seems, but
when the facts take a back seat to ideology the truth is what
suffers.

Jim Cowan
Springfield, MO

From: John Holmes

You know - during the cold war there was this concept that
if America had enough nuclear bombs and if Russia had enough
nuclear bombs then no-one would start a war because of the
inevitable Mutual Assured Destruction which would ensue. MAD.

It seems to me that the philosophy of MAD still exists in
America, except that rather than preventing violence, the
ready availability of weapons undoubtedly promotes it . Armed
criminals, armed police. Armed guards in hospitals. Armed
children. Armed everyone! Therefore what we non Americans
see (as dispassionate observers) is Mutually Assured Destruction
- of your institutions, of your children, of your society.
Why is America so violent? Why. of all "civilised" democracies
do you stand out by killing and maiming each other so regularly?
Even your judiciaries and governments perpetrate violence
with judicial poisonings and electrocutions.

Sure keep guns for sport and hunting. Then lock 'em away.
You don't need guns for protection in a truly civilised society.
Violence begets violence and guns, more than any other single
factor, allow violence to happen. I've read Jim Cowan's frequent
posts on this thread with a mixture of bemusement, amusement
and outrage. As an apologist for the NFA he demonstrates what
an outrageous influence that organisation has in America.
Wake up America - before your society irretrievably breaks
down. You don't need all this shit.

Without intention to inflame/prolong the www.trauma.org firearms
discussion to any greater extent, I have just received the
correspondence pasted below from Arthur Kellermann which provides
counterpoint to slanderous references to his important work
which are in the www.trauma.org firearms thread and various
NRA websites. I will leave it to your discretion as to how
best to work this in as I believe this could be the only web-based
record of his rebuttal.

As many aspersions are cast upon the work of those who conclude
that we would be safer without guns, the NRA data - called
for but constantly lacking in this debate, has not been available
for critical analysis. At the very bottom of this post I have
pasted an article by Ed Magnuson, Time 8/21/89 "Do Guns Save
Lives?", an examination of the methodologies of NRA "scientists"
such as Blackman and Kleck, which I believe should be appended
to the www.trauma.org firearms violence archive.

My source for the statement by Dr. Eric Stirling (misspelled
his name as Sterling) in my post about the NRA and the propagation
of AIDS (GSW patients are 2% of hospitalized patients consuming
40% of transfused blood) - was an article in the New York
Times 2/21/89 entitled "Epidemic in Urban Hospitals: Wounds
from Assault Rifles."

Thank you. Bill

From: Arthur Kellerman

Bill, short responses follow. I have been answering this
garbage for years. Fatigue is definitely the goal.

> Kellermann and his colleagues
concluded that a person
> who had a gun in his or her home was 2.7 times more
> likely to be a victim of homicide than someone who did
> not (1087). They further "found no evidence of a protective
> benefit from gun ownership...(1087)."

> In my opinion, neither of these conclusions
are justified
> on the basis of their research.

> They conducted their research by
limiting their cases to
> people murdered in their own homes, thus excluding any
> instances where intruders were killed by the homeowner.
> Their information came from survivors who could be
> considered the victims proxy.

Case control methods permit the detection of protective benefits
as readily as risk effects. I did a study of the ratio of
"self-defense" killings to home suicides, accidents and homicides.
It was 43:1. A later study that examined both fatal and non-fatal
self-defense shootings versus fatal and non-fatal suicide
attempts, assaults and accidental shootings in the home yielded
a somewhat lower number - 22:1 (J. Trauma, 1998;45:263-267.)

> In order to provide a control group they
selected another
> person from the neighborhood of the same sex, race, and
> age group as the victim, and asked them the same questions
> they had asked the victim's proxy. While matched on the
> demographic variables, the control group was stunningly
> different on behavioral measures. Compared to the control
> group the victim group was more likely to: rent rather than
> own, live alone, drink alcoholic beverages, have problems
> in the household because of drinking, have trouble at work
> because of drinking, be hospitalized because of drinking,
> use illicit drugs, have physical fights in the home during
> drinking, have a household member hit or hurt in a fight
in
> the home, have a household member require medical
> attention because of a fight in the home, have a household
> member involved in a physical fight outside the home, have
> any household member arrested, and be arrested themselves.

> Thus the victim group and the control group had very different
> lifestyles, with the victim group living a very high-risk
lifestyle.

In addition to matching cases and controls, we adjusted for
behavioral risk factors using conditional logistic regression.
The adjusted odds ratio for homicide in relation to gun ownership
was actually higher than the crude odds ratio.

> In fact, Kellermann found that having
a gun in the home ranked
> fifth out of six risk factors in the victims' lives. Using
illicit drugs
> lead to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter
4.4
> times, having any household member hit or hurt in a fight
4.4
> times, living alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7
times,
> and a household member being arrested, 2.5 times.

So? This does not reduce the significance of keeping a gun
in the home as a (modifiable) risk factor, particularly since
40% of American homes contain one or more firearms.

> The entire "gun in the home is risky"
analysis depends on one
> crucial figure, the percent of the control group (35.8%)
that have
> guns in their homes. If this figure is underreported, the
findings
> are false. There is good reason to assume this figure is
low.
>
> First, many, many surveys report that around 48% of
> Americans have guns in their homes. The victim group,
> as reported by their proxies, had 45.4% gun owners. This
> figure is unlikely to be false: the victim is dead, in 49.9%
> of the cases by gunshot wound, the proxy cannot really lie
> about it.
>
> If indeed the control group's firearms ownership was inline
> with the national averages, Kellermans conclusions are
> unwarranted.

The figures cited are for the nation overall. Gun ownership
in cities is typically lower than in small towns or rural
areas. For a thorough discussion of this issue, read my paper,
something I doubt the critic has actually done.

DO GUNS SAVE LIVES?
Ed Magnuson TIME 8/21/89

"After cabdriver Iran Bolton picked up an early morning
fare at a Phoenix, Ariz., night spot, the customer held a
broken bottle to her throat and forced her to pull into a
deserted area. Robbing her of $70, the thug pushed the woman
out of her cab and threw her to the ground. When her assailant
ordered her to crawl in the dirt, Bolton responded by emptying
her small pocket semi auto into him. He died later in a hospital."

Each month American Rifleman, the journal of the National
Rifle Association, features about a dozen such accounts of
armed citizens defending themselves against criminals. Based
on newspaper clippings submitted by NRA members, the stories
dramatically show how a gun can sometimes prevent a crime
and perhaps even save a victim's life.

The gun lobby lands on mushier ground, however, when it
leaps from such examples into a far broader argument: that
more lives are saved than lost by the firearms Americans acquire
to protect themselves and their property. The NRA emphasized
that claim in a two-page newspaper advertisement attacking
TIME for its report [July 17,1989] on 464 gun deaths that
occurred in the US in a single week, chosen at random. "Legally
owned firearms saved the lives of far more Americans than
those lost during [TIME's] seven deadly days' ", the advertisement
stated. "According to Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University,
every year some 650,000 Americans use firearms to thwart criminal
assault. That's 12,500 a week."

Even Paul Blackman, Research Coordinator for the NRA,
concedes that the advertisement "stretches the data". He adds,
" I don't know of any criminological study that has tried
to quantify the number of lives saved based on the number
of guns that were successfully used for protection."

Kleck says his study did not consider the question of
lives saved. Nor did he conclude, as the NRA claims, that
a crime or an assault had been "thwarted" in each of his estimated
645,000 ( the ad upped it to 650,000) annual instances of
a protective use of a gun. Kleck notes that his study may
have included incidents in which a homeowner merely heard
noisy youths outside his house, then shouted, "Hey, I've got
a gun!" and never saw any possible attacker.

Still, Kleck estimates that an assailant or the defender
actually fired a handgun in nearly half the cases. If so,
322,000 incidents each year involved great danger, and the
potential victims credited their gun with protecting them.
That is about 10 times the number who die from guns annually
in the US. "It is possible that guns save more lives than
they cost," Kleck says.

His numbers are based on a poll conducted by Peter D.
Hart Research Associates. It asked 1228 US voters whether
in the previous five years any member of their household had
"used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self protection
or for the protection of property". Roughly 4% said they had
done so. Projecting that percentage onto the number of US
households in the five years covered by the poll (1976-1981),
Kleck came up with the estimate that handguns had been used
protectively 3,224,880 times or 645,000 times a year. Comparing
that with surveys that included rifles and shot-guns, he estimated
that all types of guns are used defensively about a million
times a year.

Is his analysis valid? "I certainly don't feel very comfortable
with the way he's used the data", says Hart Research president
Geoffrey Garin. While Kleck based his findings on the Hart
survey, his analysis of the circumstances under which guns
were used came from other studies. Protests Garin: " We don't
know anything about the nature of the instances people were
reporting." Says William Eastman, president of the California
Chiefs of Police Association, about the Kleck conclusions:
"It annoys the hell out of me. There's no basis for that data"

There is far more research on the question of who is most
likely to get killed when someone keeps a gun at home. In
a 1986 study called "Protection or Peril?", Dr. Arthur Kellermann,
A University of Tennessee professor of medicine, and Dr. Donald
Reay, chief medical examiner of King County in Washington,
concluded that for each defensive, justifiable homicide, there
were 43 murders, suicides or accidental deaths. Out of 398
gunshot fatalities in homes in King County between 1978 and
1983, only nine were motivated by self defense.

The one week survey by TIME found a similar ratio on a
national basis: only 14 of the 464 gun deaths resulted from
defensive firing. An alarming 216 were suicides, 22 were accidental,
and many of the rest involved homicides among people who knew
each other well rather than citizens gunned down by strangers.

Such statistics do not refute the argument that a gun,
even if it is not fired, can save a life by discouraging a
murderous attacker. Still, Tulane sociologist James Wright
points out that guns have a limited usefulness in preventing
crimes. About 90% of crimes in homed occur when the resident
is away, he notes, while violent crimes often take place on
the streets. Says Wright: "Unless you make a habit of walking
around with your gun at all times, you're not going to stop
that either".

A relatively balanced view of the gun question comes,
suprisingly, from Kleck. "The vast majority of the population
lives in low-crime neighborhoods and has virtually no need
for a gun for defensive reasons," he says. "A tiny fraction
has a great deal of reason to get anything it can get that
might help reduce its victimization."

Even the American Rifleman accounts of how helpful a gun
can be in saving a life may not always tell the full story.
In the case of the cabdriver Bolton, the NRA magazine failed
to report how chance, rather than her pistol saved her life.
Bolton told the Arizona Republic that after she wounded her
assailant, he grabbed her gun, pushed the barrel against her
neck and pulled the trigger several times. What really saved
Bolton was that she had emptied the chamber. Said she:"I kept
thinking that maybe there was a bullet still in it and it
would go off at any minute".

If that had happened, the incident undoubtedly would not
have appeared in the Rifleman.